R v Milat

A Case Study in Cross-Examination

Dan Howard SC
Barrister
Visiting Professorial Fellow, School of Law,
University of Wollongong
Conjoint Associate Professor, School of Psychiatry,
University of New South Wales
LexisNexis Butterworths
Australia
2014
 DEDICATION

To the Crown Prosecutors and Public Defenders of New South Wales, with
great admiration for the challenging and difficult work they do, day in and
day out, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, I respectfully dedicate
this work.
DH
 LexisNexis
AUSTRALIA LexisNexis Butterworths
475–495 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood NSW
2067
On the internet at: www.lexisnexis.com.au
ARGENTINA LexisNexis Argentina, BUENOS AIRES
AUSTRIA LexisNexis Verlag ARD Orac GmbH & Co
KG, VIENNA
BRAZIL LexisNexis Latin America, SAO PAULO
CANADA LexisNexis Canada, Markham, ONTARIO
CHILE LexisNexis Chile, SANTIAGO
CHINA LexisNexis China, BEIJING, SHANGHAI
CZECH REPUBLIC Nakladatelství Orac sro, PRAGUE
FRANCE LexisNexis SA, PARIS
GERMANY LexisNexis Germany, FRANKFURT
HONG KONG LexisNexis Hong Kong, HONG KONG
HUNGARY HVG-Orac, BUDAPEST
INDIA LexisNexis, NEW DELHI
ITALY Dott A Giuffrè Editore SpA, MILAN
JAPAN LexisNexis Japan KK, TOKYO
KOREA LexisNexis, SEOUL
MALAYSIA LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, PETALING JAYA,
SELANGOR
NEW ZEALAND LexisNexis, WELLINGTON
POLAND Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis,
WARSAW
SINGAPORE LexisNexis, SINGAPORE
SOUTH AFRICA LexisNexis Butterworths, DURBAN
SWITZERLAND Staempfli Verlag AG, BERNE
TAIWAN LexisNexis, TAIWAN
 UNITED KINGDOM LexisNexis UK, LONDON, EDINBURGH
USA LexisNexis Group, New York, NEW YORK
LexisNexis, Miamisburg, OHIO
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Author: Howard, Dan.

Title: R v Milat: A Case Study in Cross-Examination.
ISBN: 9780409336849 (pbk).
9780409336856 (ebk).
Notes: Includes index.
Subjects: Milat, Ivan — Trials, litigation, etc. Public
prosecutors — New South Wales.
Trial transcripts — New South Wales.
Prosecution — New South Wales.
Dewey Number: 345.9405042.

© 2014 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as

LexisNexis.
This book is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968
(Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process,
electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the
copyright owner. Neither may information be stored electronically in any
form whatsoever without such permission.
Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers.
Typeset in Futura and Minion Pro.
Printed in China.
Visit LexisNexis Butterworths at www.lexisnexis.com.au
 FOREWORD

As the author kindly notes in his Preface, I was the Director of Public
Prosecutions for New South Wales at the time of the Milat trial and therefore
accountable overall for its conduct. It was a matter of great professional pride
and satisfaction to have Mark Tedeschi QC and Daniel Howard prosecuting
the trial, instructed and supported by Office of the Director of Public
Prosections staff members of the highest calibre. (Mark subsequently became
Senior Crown Prosecutor, and later was appointed AM; Dan was later
appointed a Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor and SC.)
Prosecutors do battle in the courts — as reading this book will demonstrate
– but they do not win or lose cases; they strive professionally to ensure that
justice is done according to law and that the rights of all involved are
protected. It is safe to say in this case that justice was certainly done, and the
community should have been well satisfied with the performance of all in the
criminal justice system, especially the police and prosecutors.
In the criminal courts in Australia, we practise the accusatorial, adversarial
system we inherited from England. The Crown (the prosecution) accuses and
must formulate its case and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is
not required to prove anything. The process is adversarial — the Crown and
the accused are the parties ranged against each other and the judge takes a
neutral role, ensuring in an impartial manner that the rules are applied to
produce a fair trial. The ultimate decision of guilt (or non-guilt) is for the
jury.
The other main type of criminal justice system in the world (and there are
many variations) is the inquisitorial system (as practised in many European
countries, for example). It is sometimes said that the inquisitorial system,
involving as it does the magistrate or judge very much more in the
investigation and the framing and conduct of the proceedings, is better
enabled to find the truth of a matter. Nevertheless, the adversarial system also
aims by different means to establish the truth, and cross-examination is an
important mechanism in that search.
The Crown develops and puts forward its case. The accused may attack
that case and may adduce its own case in defence, but it is not obliged to —
an accused person may sit mute throughout a trial with (generally speaking)
no penalty for doing so. The question the jury must answer is not: ‘What is
the truth — what really happened?’; it is: ‘Has the Crown proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt (notwithstanding any attack by the defence and/or
any case put forward by the defence)?’.
Therefore, an accused person has a choice whether or not to give evidence
— a choice that will usually be exercised in accordance with legal advice. If he
or she does testify, he or she will be subject to the same procedures by which
any other witness will be bound, including cross-examination by the
opposing party. Any witness is first examined in chief by the party calling him
or her, then may be cross-examined by the other party, then (in very limited
circumstances) may be re-examined by the party calling. Cross-examination
must comply with certain rules (as must the conduct of the whole trial) and it
is still considered one of the most effective means available to test the
evidence and the reliability of a witness.
As with any professional activity, cross-examination may be done well and
effectively — or not so well. It is a skill to be learned, and by analysing
Tedeschi QC’s application of that skill many may be enabled to learn. This
book will be of obvious benefit to criminal advocates and to criminal lawyers
who wish to be advocates. It provides much to be learnt: the seven strategies
in the Preface are sound advice; the techniques of cross-examination indexed
throughout are an essential guide — this is a textbook, as much as a narrative.
But the book will also be of great interest to non-lawyers who remember
the Milat case (a case of great public interest for many reasons), who wish to
discover from an authoritative source just what happened, or who are curious
to see how a Crown case can be bolstered by an effective (and proper)
forensic attack on the evidence of an accused person.
As the author states in his Preface, to his knowledge this is a unique study
of a single cross-examination of an accused person in an Australian criminal
trial. One reason for that may be that while parts of cross-examinations in
both criminal and civil cases may be worth reporting (and learning from),
rarely will a complete cross-examination of one witness from one case —
especially the accused — be worth recounting, analysing and assessing in this
incisive and constructive way. This is one of those rare cases. It probably is
unique.

Nicholas Cowdery AM QC
Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales (1994–2011)
President, International Association of Prosecutors (1999–2005)
Adjunct Professor of Law
Barrister
 PUBLISHER’S NOTE

TRANSCRIPT
The transcript of the trial of Regina v Ivan Robert Marko Milat before the
Supreme Court of New South Wales Criminal Division has been reproduced
with the permission of the Department of Attorney General and Justice New
South Wales.
Residential addresses have been anonymised in the transcript by removing
the street number and name. In addition, where necessary the Publisher has
inserted the location in square brackets. The insertions in square brackets do
not form part of the official court transcript.
Please note that the suburb Hill Top is spelt as one word throughout the
official court transcript.
© State of New South Wales through the Department of Attorney General
and Justice and reproduced with the approval of the Supreme Court of New
South Wales.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND DIAGRAMS

The photographs included in Appendix 1 and the diagrams included in
Appendix 2 were exhibits at the trial of Regina v Ivan Robert Marko Milat and
have been reproduced with the permission of the NSW Police Force.
© State of New South Wales through the NSW Police Force.
 PREFACE

This book is an annotated study of a cross-examination of an accused in a

major criminal trial, and reproduces the whole of the cross-examination.1
Why write such a book? There are several reasons. The story behind the 1996
trial of serial killer Ivan Milat on seven counts of murder and one count of
‘detain for advantage’, while extremely tragic, is a gripping one. After a trial
lasting nearly three months, the accused took the witness stand and gave his
account of events, in which he denied any involvement in these horrific
crimes. Then an inspired, careful and methodical cross-examination by a
highly skilled prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi QC, drawing on the mass of
incriminating evidence assembled by one of the largest police task forces ever
established in Australia, emphatically demonstrated the overwhelming
strength of the Crown’s case to the extent that the defence case unravelled
and was exposed for the sham it was. A study of this cross-examination
reveals much about the art of advocacy and of questioning, and should greatly
reward the reader who aspires to lift their skills as an advocate and
communicator to a higher level. It will, I believe, appeal to barristers and any
lawyer who wishes to improve their courtroom skills, and to anyone involved
in the process of interviewing, interrogation or mediation. It will also appeal
to the general reader who is interested in the processes of criminal justice.
I also hope that this book will give some essential guidance to the lawyer
who has toyed with the idea of prosecuting or defending in a criminal trial
but has never done so, possibly through the understandable sense of
apprehension that such a grave responsibility gives rise to. Anyone who has
ever acted as counsel in a criminal trial, for the first time, has shared that
sense of apprehension, and there is no better remedy for it than to study the
lessons to be gained from other criminal trials that have gone before.
Nearly 40 years ago, like many newly minted lawyers, I began my legal
career as an articled clerk and then in the solicitors’ branch of the profession,
and thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities that this presented to provide legal
services to clients from many walks of life. I found myself increasingly drawn
to courtroom advocacy and I conducted a lot of appearance work in various
courts. Eventually, I reached the stage where I thought that, if I wished to
grow as an advocate, I would need to start doing jury trials. Any young lawyer
who has reached this point will know what a personal ‘Rubicon’ this is; as a
defender or prosecutor of someone accused of serious crime, you take on a
whole new level of responsibility and you will play a major part in a process
that may have grave consequences for the accused’s liberty. Being a
competent black letter lawyer is a pre-requisite, but you also need to be able
to creatively and critically analyse evidence, and before you can do that you
need to master your case and gain an intimate knowledge of its facts — the
‘who, how, what, where, why and when’ — and the chronology of its events.
You need to reflect on the human emotions, desires and motivations that may
be present in the key players involved in the events, and get your mind into
the times when, and places where, the relevant facts occurred. On top of all of
this, you need to be an effective questioner and interrogator of witnesses, and
an effective and engaging communicator to the judge and, above all, to the
jury.
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice
system. An important corollary of this is that it is the prosecution that bears
the onus of proof of all of the essential ingredients of any criminal charge, and
to successfully discharge this onus the prosecution must establish these
elements to the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Thus, in
most cases of murder the elements of the offence are that an act of the
accused caused the death of the victim, and at the time of doing the act that
caused the death, the accused intended to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily
harm upon, the victim.2
When an accused person pleads ‘not guilty’, their defender will generally
do all that they can within the constraints of their instructions and
professional ethics to demonstrate why the evidence presented in the
prosecution case has failed to meet those requirements, and why the jury
should be left with a reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. This may involve
a concerted attack across the whole of the prosecution’s case, to establish that
it is weak, inconsistent and unreliable; or it may involve an all-out attack on a
single weak spot in the prosecution case, without which the rest of the
allegations fall away. There are many combinations in between.
The prosecutor’s task is to present the prosecution’s evidence and
demonstrate that the entire fabric of the Crown case holds together in such a
way that a jury can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused. The prosecution also has rigid duties of disclosure whereby it must
disclose the evidence in its case sufficiently in advance of the hearing, so that
the accused knows the case that he or she must meet. The prosecutor must
not adopt a ‘win at all costs’ approach, but must present the case with
scrupulous fairness and integrity, without appealing to irrelevant matters,
emotions or prejudice. The prosecutor’s primary task is to ensure that the
accused receives a fair trial. This will become second nature to a seasoned
prosecutor, who will learn to measure their approach to questioning and to
the presentation of the evidence accordingly, without losing effectiveness or
impact.
A prosecutor’s task is therefore not unlike the bricklayer’s — the case being
made is like a wall, the evidence forms the bricks, and the wall must stand
strong and well made, held together with a mortar of credibility,
commonsense and logic. The defender’s task, on the other hand, requires
pointing out that there are one or more bricks missing, or that the mortar is
weak and the wall does not hold together well enough to stand.
But where does one begin to acquire the requisite advocacy skills to
competently run a criminal trial, either as a defender or as a prosecutor?
Apart from endeavouring to acquire a sound general knowledge of ‘life and
the universe in general’ (for curiosity and good general knowledge are
extremely important to be an effective advocate) I would offer the following
seven strategies whereby the aspiring criminal advocate can do this, in order
to prepare himself or herself for crossing the ‘Rubicon’.

OBSERVE EXPERIENCED ADVOCATES AT WORK

This is not difficult, although it has fallen out of fashion somewhat. The
criminal courts are generally open to the public, and the newspapers usually
will run stories that indicate that a major trial is running in one of our courts.
Why not visit and listen in for a day? In Edwardian times, before radio,
television and the movies, court watching was a very popular pastime, and
Londoners, New Yorkers and Sydneysiders alike would await jury verdicts in
high-profile trials in a fever of anticipation. You can learn a great deal from
watching skilled advocates going about their work. It is for good reason that
watching and learning from senior advocates during pupillage is a critical
component of the Bar Readers’ programs run by the various state Bar
Associations.

STUDY DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF PAST CRIMINAL TRIALS

There are plenty of books about criminal trials. However, most of these have
been written with a narrow purpose in mind and are not clear, objective
accounts of the proceedings. Many are sensationalised and little better that
the ‘penny dreadful’ magazines of Victorian times or their ‘dime novel’
equivalents in the United States. While these may entertain, they do not
teach. Instead, try to source and get hold of some of the few really excellent
publications that accurately relate the course of a real criminal trial.
Outstanding, if you can find them, are the trials documented in the ‘Notable
British Trial’3 series — despite their age, these are a wonderful resource from
which to learn much about advocacy skills. They generally contain a fine
introductory background to the case, and an accurate account of the evidence
taken from the trial transcript. They were written at a time when the public
readership still remained enthralled by detailed accounts of what occurred in
the course of a famous trial. Penguin Books has published anthologies of the
introductory chapters from some of the ‘Notable British Trial’ series, and
although they are not always in print, they can be found.4 Included in the
series, the trials of Robert Wood (‘The Camden Town Murder’), Dr Crippen
(the infamous ‘body in the cellar’ case), Seddon (the poisoner), George Joseph
Smith (the ‘Brides in the Bath’ case), Rouse (the ‘Burning Car’ case), Ronald
True (involving mental illness), Oscar Slater (a famous ‘mistaken identity’
case), Ley and Smith (the ‘Chalkpit murder’) and many others provide an
opportunity for the reader to sense the drama of events, and to see the skills
that the advocates deployed in prosecuting and defending these persons
caught in the web of criminal proceedings.
More recently, Folio Books5 has published an excellent four-volume set of
famous trials. You may find other good titles on Amazon.com, but be sure
that it is an objective account and not sensationalised — if it contains
substantial passages from the trial transcript, then it is likely to offer some
helpful lessons.

READ BIOGRAPHIES AND SPEECHES OF GREAT ADVOCATES

Studying the lives and work of great advocates can be a rich source of
knowledge, inspiration and confidence building. To understand the dazzling
ups and downs of a career of one such as the Edwardian defender Sir Edward
Marshall Hall,6 or the steady rise and sheer forensic talent of the likes of Sir
Norman Birkett;7 or to read the closing address of Justice Robert Jackson at
Nuremberg8 or Clarence Darrow’s plea for mercy from the death penalty on
behalf of his clients Leopold and Loeb9 will bring you to grips with the ‘Real
McCoy’ of courtroom advocacy and the realisation that it is possible for
competent advocates to rise to any occasion, however complex, nerve-
wracking and dramatically in the public eye the case may be. An excellent and
inspiring read is Geoffrey Robertson’s The Tyrannicide Brief,10 about John
Cooke (who prosecuted King Charles I), a book by an outstanding advocate
that teaches much about courageous and ethical advocacy in times of great
social upheaval. An excellent modern autobiography of a great Australian
advocate is Chester Porter’s Walking on Water.11

LEARN HOW TO MASTER AND MARSHAL (THAT IS, ORGANISE AND

PRESENT) YOUR MATERIAL
This is an indispensible and, sadly, a somewhat underrated skill. Unless you
are across your brief you will never rise above a passable performance in the
courtroom. Mastery of a brief entails knowing the asserted facts, assessing the
quality and reliability of witnesses, identifying the strengths and weaknesses
in the case and knowing where the gaps are, and having a clear sense of the
theory of the case while remaining flexible enough in your thinking to
creatively anticipate and deal with unexpected turns in the evidence as it
emerges in the course of testimony. It requires an intimate understanding of
the environment in which the alleged crime occurred. A good advocate will
always travel to and view the crime scene to gain an understanding of its
salient features, and especially to be better able to mentally put himself or
herself into the ‘shoes’, and to enter the ‘mind’, of those involved in the event.
To do so also requires an appreciation of what else was going on in the
background (the ‘context’) of the alleged crime. If the facts are at your
fingertips you will more readily pick up (and be able to respond to)
inconsistencies and weaknesses in the evidence. You need to come to grips
with the science behind any scientific expert evidence in the case, and to
ensure that you understand whether it is useful or not, and what weight
should be given to this kind of evidence.
Marshalling (organising and presenting) is almost as critical a skill as
mastery of the brief. It is not much use mastering a brief unless you can
present the case properly. Marshalling requires techniques not unlike that
employed by a book editor or a story writer — putting the material into a
logical sequence, and presenting it in captivating, manageable ‘chapters’ in
the correct order for developing themes and enabling the jury to digest the
whole in a manner that is understandable and compelling in its logical force
and truthfulness. Here, the order in which you call witnesses can be of utmost
importance, and the good advocate should never compromise on this unless
absolutely necessary (for example, if a witness is unexpectedly ill and the case
cannot be adjourned).
Organising yourself is also a part of all this. Your physical brief, however
small or large, should be assembled in the same order in which you propose
to present the case. In a complicated case you should have two witness lists –
one a numerical list showing the order in which you propose to call them and
the other an alphabetical list showing where they are in the brief numerically.
Having summaries of the evidence, lists of exhibits to be tendered,
photographs and charts and other visual aids, and a clear understanding of
the law applicable to the case after appropriate reflection and anticipation
about the issues in dispute will ensure that you are in a state of readiness that
frees up your mind to concentrate on the witnesses and the evidence as it
unfolds in the courtroom, and its implications.

PRACTICE IMMERSING YOUR MIND IN THE CASE AT HAND, AND

REFLECTING DEEPLY ON ALL OF ITS COMPONENTS USING INDUCTION
AND DEDUCTION
Consider the human motivations and emotions that may be in play; the
chronological, geographical and environmental features of the crime; the
possibilities and impossibilities — make an effort to ponder oddities and the
meaning of inconsistencies
This is all part of being an effective advocate. You need to think both inside
and outside of the square. Throughout the Milat trial, the prosecution team
spent many hours in deep reflection on the many intricate aspects of the case.

STUDY THE TECHNIQUES OF GOOD COMMUNICATION AND

STORYTELLING (THE SKILLS THAT MAKE SOME PEOPLE GREAT TO
LISTEN TO)
A good advocate has the ability to present and explain the evidence in a
captivating way, so that the jury remains interested and involved in the
unfolding of the case. Most criminal cases, for better or worse, do indeed have
all the elements of an intriguing story, and a real life one at that, which makes
them all the more interesting if they are well presented. It is important to note
here that the advocate is not making anything up (and must not) but, rather,
is bringing out the essential fascination that is inherent in any contest of
conflicting versions of events. Juries enjoy the mystery and the purposeful
nature of the task they have been sworn to perform. Developing this skill of
presentation involves honing your timing, pace of delivery and voice
modulation. It requires thinking about where emphasis should be given,
when to persist with something and when to let something go, and when to
repeat and explain and when to let the jurors work out the significance of a
point for themselves — a form of involvement and engagement that can be a
very effective communicating tool that enables you to carry the jury along
with the narrative you are presenting.

PRACTICE WHAT YOU LEARN WHERE YOU CAN

Your advocacy skills will develop with practice. You may find that there will
be opportunities to try various techniques and methods in non-critical
matters or when you know it is safe to do so, such as where the outcome will
surely be the same regardless of the quality of your advocacy; in such a case
you may find opportunities to try a new technique or approach, to
experiment a little and to gain confidence with it. Over time, you will find
that your skills grow.
It is hoped that this book will provide a reading experience that will satisfy
the first six of these strategies. It offers an analysis of an entire cross-
examination of the accused in a significant major murder trial, by a very
skilled advocate who had mastered the brief, marshalled the evidence expertly
and who communicated in a highly effective manner to the jury.
As for the seventh strategy, the would-be trial lawyer will need to practice,
and eventually to cross their Rubicon alone.

SOME BACKGROUND TO THIS CASE STUDY

The trial of Ivan Milat took place in the New South Wales Supreme Court in
1996 before the Chief Judge at Common Law, the Hon Justice David Hunt,
and a jury, in the old Banco Court in St James’ Road, Sydney. The trial
attracted an enormous amount of media coverage and public interest,
nationally and internationally.
A Crown Prosecutor at the time, I had the privilege of being Mark
Tedeschi’s junior counsel throughout the entire trial, and so had close
involvement in all aspects of the case, including a seat next to Tedeschi at the
bar table and also in the prosecutor’s chambers from which to take part in
and follow his entire preparation and presentation of the case. Later in my
career I spent some years as Director of the Postgraduate Prosecutions
Program at the University of Wollongong, where I taught advocacy in
criminal trials. I became aware that while there are innumerable books about
cross-examination techniques they invariably rely upon brief extracts of a few
questions and answers, usually from famous old trials, that are used (and
often repeatedly ‘trotted out’ in books on the subject) to demonstrate the
effectiveness of a particular manner of approach in particular situations.
While such an approach can certainly be helpful, it is very incomplete and
unsatisfying. In my view, a far better way to learn the skills required for
effective cross-examination is to study an entire cross-examination from
beginning to end, whereby one can see the rising and falling tensions of the
moment, to which the cross-examiner must respond, on the run and to the
best of his or her ability, with the best line of attack that they can. This will
reveal the degree to which the advocate has mastered the brief and marshalled
the evidence, which will be reflected by the adroitness of their response to the
ebb and flow of the course of the evidence. One can also see the development
of entire lines of questioning and the tenacity and persistence that can be
required to see them through to an effective conclusion. Along the way, one
also learns almost the entire story of the case, as the cross examining
prosecutor must put to the accused any disputed relevant propositions and
inferences that the cross-examiner will submit to the jury are established by
the evidence, in accordance with well-established rules of fairness exemplified
by the case of Browne v Dunn.12 Furthermore, by understanding the narrative
or story of the case, particularly if this is illustrated with images of the very
exhibits that were tendered in the trial and used by the cross-examiner (as we
will do here), the reader can better appreciate the skills deployed by the cross-
examiner in his or her approach to questioning, against the factual
background and context of the case. It also provides a richer and more
satisfying understanding of the case itself.
To my knowledge there is no single study of this kind available in
Australia, and I expect that the reason for this is that most criminal trial
transcripts become forgotten and are archived. Trials with juries are very
rarely reported in the law reports, apart from decisions about questions of law
and admissibility that may be determined by the trial judge during the course
of a trial. If the jury’s verdict is appealed, then the appellate court’s decision
may well be reported in the law reports, but it will not contain the entire
cross-examination, and will generally only refer to aspects of the trial relevant
to the limited points of law argued on appeal. I am very grateful to the New
South Wales Department of the Attorney General and Justice for granting
permission to use the trial transcript of the cross-examination for this book
and this provides a unique opportunity to provide the reader with an
unusually ‘up close’ insight into the work of the skilled advocate.
The presentation of the book is designed to maximise the learning
experience for the reader. The transcript makes for very interesting reading
by itself. However, I have added many annotations and footnotes that explain
the background to significant issues, and the technique, strategy and purpose
behind the questions. My hope is that this combination will provide the
reader with some real insights into the art of cross-examination. The New
South Wales Police Force has kindly permitted the reproduction in the book
of many of the photographs of exhibits and charts used in the trial itself.
These can be found in Appendices 1 and 2 of this book and can be looked at
as the reader follows the questioning, and will enable the reader to see what
was being shown to the witness at the time, thereby giving an added sense of
experiencing the event first-hand. Truly skillful use of exhibits is an art of
great finesse, often underestimated. The timing of introducing an exhibit, and
its use once admitted into evidence, will often distinguish a tyro from a
master. Deciding when and in what manner to show an exhibit to a witness
and/or the jury can add significantly to the impact that the exhibit has. In the
Milat case, much work had gone into the presentation of exhibits, including
the preparation of summary charts and photo books that became critical aids
in explaining the prosecution case to the jury. Tedeschi’s use of exhibits in
this trial, as the reader will see, was exceptional.
The purpose of this book is not to deal with every issue that the Milat trial
gave rise to — that would fill several volumes.13 Rather, I have sought to
concentrate just on the cross-examination, and the lessons it holds for
advocates. A succinct introductory chapter will give the reader the essential
background to the case, which will enable them to follow and understand the
cross-examination. The annotations will, I hope, serve to expand further on
the relevant facts of the case and to illustrate the skills and techniques
deployed by the advocate. In combination, I believe that these will tell the
story of this important case, and give the reader a richer understanding of the
art of advocacy.
There are a number of acknowledgments I wish to make. First, my thanks
to the New South Wales Department of the Attorney General and Justice, for
permission to reproduce the transcript of the cross-examination. Thanks also
to the New South Wales Police for permission to reproduce a number of
police photographs used as exhibits in the trial. Particular thanks to Detective
Inspector Andrew Waterman, who assisted with access to trial exhibits and
provided helpful comments in relation to Chapter 1, and to her Honour
Judge Sarah Huggett for her helpful comments on that chapter. I would most
especially like to thank Mark Tedeschi AM QC for his insights and
suggestions, and for his willingness to have another barrister analyse and
comment so closely upon his work; the cross-examination itself, of course, is
all his work, and I have merely set myself the task of analysing his approach
and technique as an advocate. I also extend my great thanks to Nicholas
Cowdery AM QC for his thoughtful Foreword to this book, and for his
inspired leadership of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions over
many years, including the year of Ivan Milat’s trial.
Thank you also to LexisNexis Butterworths and for the skill and
professionalism of all the people there who have enthusiastically supported
this work from its inception. My special thanks go to Commissioning Editors
Philippa Huxley, for her encouragement in the early stages of the proposal,
and Cassandra Dunne, for her encouragement also, as well as her remarkable
organisational and editing skills in bringing the project home. Many thanks
to editor Georgia O’Neill, whose skills have greatly enhanced the layout and
the quality of the prose. Thanks also to Eleanor O’Connor and Hayley Moore
for their very helpful input with the final stages of preparing the manuscript
for publication.

Dan Howard SC
Sydney
May 2014
Crown Prosecutors Mark Tedeschi QC (standing) and Dan Howard (the
author), with their instructing DPP solicitor Sarah Huggett, in the old
Banco Court in St James Road at the time of the Milat trial.
(Photo courtesy of Mark Tedeschi and reproduced with kind permission of
the Chief Justice of New South Wales.)

1 Author’s note: The legal discussion between counsel and the trial judge that took place
from time to time in the absence of the jury has not been reproduced here, as this did not
constitute evidence in the case and did not form part of the cross-examination.
2 See Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18. There are other circumstances in which murder may be
committed, including where there is reckless indifference to human life, or where the
felony/murder rule applies. Omissions by the accused may also give rise to murder if
accompanied by the requisite intention.
3 Published between 1905 and 1959 by William Hodge & Co, London, these fine books
include titles dealing with the most sensational trials in British criminal law, in an age when
courtroom advocates stood upon a very public stage. You may find them in second-hand
bookshops and some libraries, or try Amazon.com.
4 See, for example, Famous Trials, a selection by John Mortimer, Penguin Books, 1984;
Famous Trials, Penguin Books, vols 1 (1941), 2 (1948), 4 (1954) and 5 (1953).
5 Notable Historical Trials, Folio Society, London, 1999, vols 1, 2, 3 and 4.
6 E Marjoribanks, The Life of Sir Edward Marshall Hall, Victor Gollancz, London, 1929;
 Famous Trials of Marshall Hall, Penguin Books, 1950; see also Sir David Napley, The
Camden Town Murder, 1987, Trafalgar Square.
7 H Montgomery Hyde, Norman Birkett: The Life of Lord Birkett of Ulverston, Hamish
Hamilton, London, 1965.
8 International Military Tribunal, The Trial of German Major War Criminals: Speeches of the
Chief Prosecutors, H M Stationery Office, London, 1946.
9 See A Weinberg (ed), Attorney for the Damned, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1989, pp 16–88.
10 G Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief, Chatto and Windus, London, 2005.
11 Chester Porter, Walking on Water — A Life in the Law, Random House, Australia, 2004.
12 (1893) 6 R 67 (HL).
13 There are a number of general accounts of the case. Perhaps the most detailed is M
Whittaker and L Kennedy, Sins of the Brother: The Definitive Story of Ivan Milat and the
Backpacker Murders, Macmillan, Sydney, 1998. Neil Mercer’s book on the subject, Fate:
Inside the Backpacker Murders Investigation, Random House Australia, Milsons Point,
1997, provides a good, concise account. See also R Shears, Highway to Nowhere: The
Chilling True Story of the Backpacker Murders, Harper Collins, Sydney, 1996; and R
Maynard, Milat: The Full Horror of the Backpacker Murders, Margaret Gee Publishing and
Price Publishing, Sydney, 1996. For a recent account of the police investigation see C
Small and T Gilling, Milat: Inside Australia’s Biggest Manhunt, Allen & Unwin, Sydney,
2014.
 CONTENTS

Foreword
Publisher’s Note
Preface

CHAPTER 1
THE BACKGROUND TO THE BACKPACKER MURDERS TRIAL

CHAPTER 2
DAY ONE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION 18 JUNE 1996

CHAPTER 3
DAY TWO OF CROSS-EXAMINATION 19 JUNE 1996

CHAPTER 4
DAY THREE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION 20 JUNE 1996

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Appendix 1
TRIAL EXHIBIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix 2
TRIAL EXHIBIT DIAGRAMS
Index
[page 1]
 CHAPTER 1
THE BACKGROUND TO THE
BACKPACKER MURDERS TRIAL

INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Belanglo State Forest, south of Berrima in the Southern Highlands of
New South Wales, comprises some 3800 hectares of planted pines mixed with
ghost gums and other eucalypts and a good deal of scrubby bush. This is
interlaced by a bewildering number of sandy fire trails that wind their way
through the drab landscape of mostly low ridges and shallow valleys. It is
difficult to get far into the forest without a four-wheel drive vehicle.
To passing traffic on the Hume Highway, the forest appears in the middle
distance to the west as a somewhat dark and gloomy woodland rise. It is an
unspectacular, lonely place with no particular features of interest to tourists,
although trail bikers sometimes ride there. It would be easy to become lost in
the forest due to its featureless sameness. It is, all in all, a rather unremarkable
place, but it lays claim to a chilling notoriety that remains etched on the
collective consciousness of Australians; for here, between December 1989 and
April 1992, Ivan Milat committed a series of seven terrible murders that
collectively became known as the ‘Backpacker Murders’.
A serial killer is a mercifully rare phenomenon, whose repetitive modus
operandi presents investigators with distinct behaviour and evidence trails
that gradually reveal patterns or ‘signatures’ that, once understood, enable
investigators to greatly sharpen the focus of their efforts, and prosecutors to
make crucial connections between apparently distinct events. In combination,
these elements can powerfully establish the killer’s guilt, as the evidence
relevant to each separate incident in the series can become evidence relevant
to all the others. However, it frequently takes time for the pieces of the puzzle
to fall into place and for a clear picture to emerge.

DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES

1.2 The first piece of what proved to be a very large and complex puzzle was a
gruesome discovery made on a spring day in September 1992, by two
orienteers. While participating in an event in the forest, organised by the
‘Scrub Runners’ club, they passed a boulder near the Long Acre fire trail, and
noticed a pungent stench. Tucked up against the boulder they found a badly
decomposed female corpse. They quickly reported their discovery to police,
and the following day a team of officers came to the spot and, while searching
the surrounding area for clues, found a second body of a female, also badly
decomposed, hard up against a fallen log some 30 m from the boulder. Both
of the bodies had been covered

[page 2]

with leaf litter and small vegetation from the forest, over which had been
placed a layer of tree branches.
The bodies proved to be those of Joanne Walters (aged 22) from Wales,
and Caroline Clarke (aged 21), an Englishwoman, who had met in Australia
and had been backpacking around Australia together. They had been missing
since 18 April 1992. Post mortems were carried out on the bodies.
Walters had been stabbed a total of fourteen times in her neck and back,
most probably with a large knife. The tip of one vertebra in her spine and
some of her ribs had been cut completely through. She had clearly been
attacked with much ferocity. Her mouth had been gagged with a piece of
cloth rag tied around her head, and about her neck and chin there was a
ligature of similar rag which had, by the time her body was found, separated
into two pieces. The pieces of rag had been part of a business shirt, and one of
the rags, part of the shirt’s collar, still had the label showing that it was a
Gloweave brand, size 41. In addition, all but the top button of Walter’s jeans,
still on her body, were undone and no underpants were found. Her t-shirt
and bra were found pulled up, exposing her breasts. A few strands of hair
were found in her right hand.1
Caroline Clarke had been stabbed once in the back by a similar knife to
that used upon Walters. However, unlike Walters, Clarke had also been shot.
There were 10 bullet entry wounds to her head, and the bullets were all
recovered from her head or the soil underneath. Each of the bullets had
marks that were consistent with a silencer having been used. They were all .22
calibre, and 10 corresponding .22 calibre brass cartridge cases, no doubt
ejected from the firearm, were found in the immediate vicinity of Clarke’s
body. Ballistic analysis established that each of the 10 cartridge cases had the
same distinctive tool marking that had been etched in the brass by the same
firing pin, indicating that the one gun had fired all 10 shots.2 A sweatshirt had
been wrapped around Clarke’s head, and tests revealed there was gunpowder
residue on it, indicating that the shots had been fired

[page 3]

at close range. The front clip of her bra was undone and the bra front was
skewed to the side.
Neither Walters nor Clarke appeared to have any ‘defensive’-type wounds
indicative of fending off an attack, which are often found on the bodies of
homicide victims. The absence of such wounds suggested that neither had
any opportunity to defend themselves from their attacker.
The police treated the deaths of Walters and Clarke as a double murder,
and a small number of detectives were working on the investigation.
However, that all changed after 5 October 1993, when a fossicker, who was
collecting firewood in the forest, came upon a human thigh bone near the
upper Long Acre fire trail in the Belanglo State Forest. Looking further, he
found nearby a human skull and a number of other bones. He alerted police,
who conducted a search in the area and located further remains from the
same body as the skull located by the fossicker. They also located a second
body about 25 m away. DNA testing established that the first set of remains
belonged to Deborah Everist, a Victorian woman aged 19 years. The other
body was that of her travelling companion, James Gibson, also aged 19 years
and from Victoria. Each of the bodies had been placed at the base of a
separate tree and covered with forest debris and large sticks, in a manner
similar to Clarke and Walters.
Everist and Gibson had last been seen alive on 30 December 1989, when
they were setting out to hitchhike south from Surry Hills in Sydney to an
environmental festival known as ‘Confest’ in Albury, near the Victorian
Border. Curiously, on 31 December 1989 a camera, and on 13th March 1990 a
backpack, both belonging to Gibson, had been found by the side of the road
winding through Galston Gorge in Sydney’s north, and nowhere near the
Belanglo State Forest. At that time, police had searched the gorge for further
clues, without success.
Everist’s body was skeletal when found, and some of the bones had been
dispersed, almost certainly by animals in the forest. A piece of cloth, heavily
weathered from exposure but consistent with having been used as a gag, was
found near her body. Nearby, police also located a black bra that had
numerous cuts to the straps and cups consistent with stabbing; they also
located a pair of black underpants of a style that matched the bra, which also
had cuts consistent with stabbing. Police also located near the body a pair of
black pantyhose, the lower part of each leg of which had been tied in a
slipknot forming loops that would have enabled it to be used as a restraint.
Post mortem examination revealed that Everist had suffered six blunt force
and penetrating injuries to her head. Her jaw had also been fractured. One of
her lower left ribs had been cut, consistent with a stab wound caused by a
knife entering her chest cavity and penetrating her lung and probably her
heart or aorta. She had died of multiple stab wounds and blows.

[page 4]

Most of the stab wounds were consistent with being caused by a knife with a
blade 20–30 mm wide.
Like Everist, Gibson’s bones indicated that he had been stabbed numerous
times, with damage to the ribs and spine. One particularly severe knife blow
from behind had cut through three vertebrae of Gibson’s back. Two of the
knife wounds had penetrated his sternum and would have also penetrated his
heart or major blood vessels. The zipper of Gibson’s jeans was undone, but
the top button was fastened.
It was now clear to the New South Wales Police Force that a serial killer
had probably been at work, and that there might be more bodies of missing
persons in the forest. Within a week, on 12 October 1993, the police
established Task Force Air, under the command of Superintendent Clive
Small, which mounted a huge and, in time, spectacularly successful
investigation. It was certainly known that other young foreign nationals who
had been hitchhiking their way around Australia were listed as missing
persons. After a painstaking search of the forest by vast picket lines of
dedicated police officers two more crime scenes were located.
The skeletal remains of Simone Schmidl were found on 1 November 1993,
some 30 m into the bush off the Tree Cave fire trail in the Belanglo State
Forest. A 21-year-old finance student from Germany, Schmidl was last seen
alive on 20 January 1991 after setting out from Sydney, with a backpack, to
hitchhike her way to Melbourne where she had planned to meet up with her
mother for a campervan holiday.
Schmidl’s remains were also covered with forest debris, with sticks and a
large tree branch placed on top. A piece of cloth, now deteriorated, was tied
around her mouth. Her bra, undershirt and vest had been rolled up toward
her neck and shoulders. There were cuts to the undershirt and vest consistent
with stabbing. The cord of her shorts was undone and there were nine cuts in
the seam of the shorts. Post mortem examination revealed two injuries to her
spine and six injuries to her ribs consistent with multiple stab wounds, most
of which were consistent with having been caused by a knife with a blade 20–
30 mm wide. Around Schmidl’s head was tied an elasticised Compact-o-mat
brand strap, of the type used for tying sleeping mats or other camping gear.
Schmidl had two such straps in her camping kit when she had left Germany.
On 4 November 1993, within the forest but some 2 km from Schmidl’s
remains, the police located the bodies of two German students from Munich,
Anja Habschied, aged 20, and Gabor Neugebauer, aged 21. Their bodies were
located close to another fire trail and some 50 m apart. A further 165 m away
was an area that police described as ‘Area A’, in which a considerable amount
of evidence was located, suggesting that much activity leading up to
Habschied’s and Neugebauer’s murders had taken place there.

[page 5]

Anja Habschied’s body was in skeletal condition and was covered with
forest debris, sticks and a large branch. Her head was never found and the
post mortem established that she had been decapitated at the neck by a heavy
cutting implement such as a sword or machete. According to the evidence of
the pathologist, Dr Bradhurst, the injury was consistent with her head having
been bowed at the time it was cut. He stated in evidence at the trial: ‘[W]hat
immediately comes to mind is the style of ceremonial execution’. Habschied’s
halter top was torn and ripped, and her bra strap had a cut consistent with
stabbing. There was no clothing on her lower body. Her pink jeans, found
nearby, had a broken zipper and with the jeans was found a piece of pink-
coloured cloth, the ends of which had been tied together by a knot so as to
form a wrist-sized loop. Next to the jeans was located a distinct rope with blue
and yellow strands intertwined, of the kind used by Telecom Australia, and
some 4.5 m long. It had been tied to form a loop, consistent with use as a
restraint device.
Gabor Neugebauer’s nearly skeletal remains were also covered with debris
and sticks, and a large log. There was a cloth gag inside his mouth and
another piece of cloth had been tied around his face and tied at the back. His
hyoid bone had been fractured — often a sign of strangulation — and he had
been shot six times to the head. Five of the bullets were recovered and three of
these were .22 calibre; the other two were too damaged to identify what
calibre they were. Also found was what appeared to be an improvised ‘leash’
or restraining device, comprised of a plastic electrical tie, sash cord and black
electrical tape.3
In Area A the police found 46 Eley brand .22 calibre brass cartridge cases
and a further 47 Winchester brand .22 calibre brass cartridge cases. Two trees
in the area had bullet fragments in them, as if they had been used for target
practice. Also found there were two empty cardboard .22 calibre ammunition
boxes, one of Eley brand and the other of Winchester brand. Of great
significance, ballistics examination confirmed that the 47 Winchester
cartridge cases had been fired from the same weapon as had been used to kill
Caroline Clarke. The Eley ammunition had been fired by a different gun, later
established to be the Anschutz rifle found during a police search among
property of Ivan Milat, in the alcove under his brother Walter Milat’s home:
see Photo 22.
A number of personal items belonging to Neugebauer or Habschied were
located on the ground between where their bodies were located and Area A,
including a money belt, a broken neck chain, a brown leather sandal and a
broken strap.

[page 6]
PAUL ONIONS
1.3 In November 1993 the New South Wales Government offered a $500,000
reward, the highest ever offered by the state up to that time, for information
leading to the conviction of the killer. Task Force Air established an
information line that received thousands of phone calls and items of
information, and meaningful leads were entered into a computer program in
an effort to find patterns and connections. Still the identity of the killer
remained unknown, although in among the vast amount of data and
information that the police were gathering were items that would, in time,
give significant hints that would lead to Ivan Milat becoming a serious
suspect. However, there was nothing conclusive at this stage.
There was considerable media coverage of the finding of the ‘bodies in the
forest’, including in overseas newspapers. One article in the British press
caught the eye of an Englishman, Paul Onions, who was struck by the
similarities of what had happened to him three years previously on 25 January
1990 when, as a 24-year-old, he was backpacking around Australia and was
detained at gunpoint near Bowral by a man who had given him a lift in a
four-wheel drive vehicle. This had occurred on the Hume Highway about 1
km from the turnoff into the Belanglo State Forest. Onions made contact with
Task Force Air through the High Commission in London on 13 November
1993 and provided them with some information about the incident, including
the fact that he had immediately reported the matter to the Bowral police on
25 January 1990.
Officers from Task Force Air then confirmed with Bowral Police that,
indeed, Paul Onions had reported the incident that very day to the Constable
on duty at Bowral, who had at the time typed up an ‘occurrence pad’ entry
and also made a notebook entry containing the details Onions reported.
These were now made available to Task Force Air and this information, that
had been effectively filed away as an unsolved matter, was now seen in a
completely new light, as a critical lead to the identity of the backpacker
murderer. According to the information provided by the notebook entry and
the occurrence pad, Onions had described in some detail what had happened,
and gave a description of his attacker. This included that his name was ‘Bill’ (a
nickname used by Ivan Milat); he had a dark complexion, a moustache like
Merv Hughes (Hughes is a famous Australian fast bowler who was in test
cricket at the time, who sported a long, bushy moustache that drooped in a
pronounced fashion down his cheeks and past either side of his chin), black
hair, a solid build, was six feet tall and aged in his mid-thirties; he wore
sunglasses; he said that his parents were Yugoslav, that he was divorced and
that he worked for the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) at Liverpool; he
drove a white or silver Nissan or Toyota four-wheel drive vehicle (Ivan
Milat’s vehicle was a predominantly silver Nissan Patrol four-wheel drive);
and he

[page 7]

used a loaded revolver with a four-inch barrel (evidence later adduced at the
trial suggested that Ivan Milat had owned a revolver). In fact, Milat had dark
hair (with some flecks of grey), a complexion that could fairly be considered
dark, and was solidly built and fit. He also wore a moustache that resembled a
‘Merv Hughes’ type of moustache, although not as bushy and swept back,
perhaps looking more like a drooping, ‘Mexican’ style of moustache. He
worked for the RTA, his father was Yugoslav, and he was divorced. The
accumulation of details in Onion’s description, as recorded in the occurrence
pad entry and the police constable’s notebook, can reasonably be said to have
fitted Ivan Milat, with the main differences being that Milat was 45 years old
at the time and was not 6 ft tall but just under 5 ft 7.5 in tall.
Onions was brought to Australia where he made a statement to police on 5
May 1994, and he was shown a video containing an array of 13 individual still
photographs of the faces of different persons, from which he picked the image
of Ivan Milat as the person who had detained him for advantage, at gunpoint.
The entire procedure was videotaped. Onion’s statement provided more
details about the incident and his attacker, and his evidence at the trial was to
the following effect.
Onions told the court that his attacker was an Australian with a dark
complexion. He was strong looking and mid-30s to 40 years old but appeared
older when he lost control. He had a ‘Merv Hughes’-type moustache but
thinner and flecked with grey at the bottom near the chin area, the side levers
flecked with grey. The attacker spoke with an Australian accent, was dark
haired, squinty eyed and right handed, had a strong mouth with teeth that
slightly protruded from his lips, had a ‘stupid grin’, appeared tall — 6 ft at
most, and wore a t-shirt, shorts and thongs.
Onions told the court that he had been on a working holiday in Australia.
He had caught a train from Glebe to Liverpool carrying his rucksack,
intending to hitchhike to Mildura in the hope of finding work fruit picking.
He walked for about an hour to the Hume Highway, and stopped at
Lombardo’s Shopping Centre at Casula and bought a drink at the newsagency
there. As he left the shop, he was approached by a man who asked him if he
needed a lift. The man pointed out his four-wheel drive vehicle, and Onions
waited beside it while the man went into the newsagency and then returned to
the vehicle. He placed Onion’s rucksack on the back seat and they both got
into the car, with Onions in the front passenger seat. The man then
proceeded to drive south along the Hume Highway.
There was general conversation in the car, and the car radio was playing.
The man introduced himself as ‘Bill’ and said that he worked on the roads
and was on holiday and travelling to Canberra. He also mentioned that he
lived in the Liverpool area, was divorced and was of Yugoslavian extraction.
Bill asked a few questions of Onions that, in retrospect, were ominous.

[page 8]
He asked Onions whether he had any family in Australia. Onions responded
that he was from Birmingham and did not have any family or friends in
Australia, and he was travelling alone around the country. Bill asked Onions
what he did for a living, and Onions told him he was an air-conditioning
engineer and had recently finished a period of service in the navy. Bill oddly
also asked whether Onions had served in the Special Forces, or served time in
Northern Ireland and Onions told him he had not. As events proved, Bill was
clearly sizing up whether or not Onions was a suitable person to abduct,
checking if he was vulnerable and without local connections — someone who
would not soon be missed if he were to go missing.
According to Onions’ account, after about 30 minutes of this kind of
conversation Bill’s attitude changed and he started to espouse anti-Asian
views, and voiced his objections to the British presence in Northern Ireland.
Onions now became nervous and began to look more closely at Bill. He
noticed that he was constantly looking in the rear vision mirror and then,
approximately 900 m from the turnoff to the Belanglo State Forest, Bill
slowed the car and brought it to a stop. He told Onions that they were in a
spot where the car radio reception would soon get weak, and that he wanted
to get out a cassette for the tape recorder. Bill opened his driver’s door and
got out, then reached under the driver’s seat, apparently searching for a
cassette. Onions was puzzled, as the radio reception seemed clear enough, and
there were cassettes plainly visible on the console between the seats. Onions,
feeling a little uneasy, undid his seatbelt, opened his passenger side door and
stepped out of the car. Bill asked him why he was getting out of the car, and
seemed agitated. Onions got back in, while Bill continued to rummage under
the driver’s seat. Suddenly, instead of a cassette, Bill produced from under the
driver’s seat a dark coloured revolver and pointed it directly at Onions. ‘This
is a robbery!’ he said. Obviously greatly alarmed by the revolver, Onions
observed that it was loaded with copper tipped bullets that he could see in the
chambers of the revolver pointing directly at him,4 and then he noticed,
protruding from under the driver’s seat, a bag containing what he later
described as ‘dirty ropes’.5 On seeing these, Onions realised the incredible
danger he was in, and leapt out of the car, running as fast as he could away
from the car. Instinctively remembering his navy training, Onions ran from
side to side in a zigzag pattern, while Bill chased after him, shouting ‘Stop or
I’ll shoot!’. Onions had nowhere to run but across the freeway — at least there
were cars passing there, albeit at dangerously high speed — and he was
narrowly missed by several cars that had to swerve to avoid colliding with
him. A shot rang out behind

[page 9]

him. Onions ran on to the median strip, where Bill caught up with him and
grabbed the back of his t-shirt, causing it to tear, and bringing Onions to the
ground. There they struggled, and somehow Onions managed to break free.
Completely desperate now, he ran straight toward an on-coming van in the
south-bound lane of the freeway, expecting that it would either stop for him
or that he would be run over and killed. To his great relief the van braked and
came to a stop a short distance away without hitting him. Onions opened the
sliding door of the van, yelling, ‘Please stop! He’s got a gun!’, and jumped
inside.
The driver of the van was a Mrs Berry, who was on her way to Canberra
with her young children. She had noticed the two men ahead of her as she
was driving south, and observed Onions running away from the other man.
After stopping to avoid hitting Onions, who then entered her van, with
immense composure Mrs Berry reversed the van, did a u-turn across the
median strip and headed back along the north-bound lane of the freeway.
While reversing the van, Mrs Berry had observed the other man walking back
toward a small, silver Nissan four-wheel drive that had a crimson stripe down
the side.
Mrs Berry drove Onions directly to the Bowral Police Station, where he
gave to the constable on duty an account of what had happened, including his
description of ‘Bill’ and his four-wheel drive vehicle. The constable duly
recorded this information on an occurrence pad kept at the station. Onions
also told the constable that he had had no choice but to leave his own
haversack, with its contents, in the back of his assailant’s vehicle. Most
unfortunately, the occurrence pad entry was filed away without being
properly followed up by detectives. Onions, who was travelling alone around
Australia, moved on, and the information he had provided, which would
almost certainly have led the police to Ivan Milat, was not acted upon. One of
the tragedies of the case is that if Onions’ complaint had been followed up the
subsequent murders of five more victims would not have occurred.
The accuracy of Onion’s identification was fully canvassed and tested in the
trial and was the subject of careful and detailed directions by the trial judge.
The jury clearly accepted that the person described by Onions was Ivan Milat.

TASK FORCE AIR GATHERS FURTHER EVIDENCE

1.4 It appeared to Task Force Air that Onions’ attacker and the serial killer
responsible for the bodies in the Belanglo State Forest were one and the same
person. Now they had a prime suspect in Ivan Milat, whom Onions had
identified as his attacker in the photo array he had been shown by police. This
major breakthrough enabled Task Force Air to progress the investigation by
leaps and bounds.

[page 10]

Investigating police were aware that the Milat family was an extended and
generally close one, and police had obtained a significant amount of
background information about the family from various persons. They had
also received some advice about the likely profile and characteristics of the
serial killer they were after — a forensic psychiatrist had suggested that the
killer was very likely to have kept some of the property of the victims as
trophies or souvenirs. Investigating police were also aware that it was possible
that the killer may not have acted alone. The fact that a number of the victims
had been abducted in pairs raised the question of how much difficulty one
man, acting alone, might have had in abducting them. There was also the
disquieting extent of activity that had clearly taken place in Area A at the
Neugebauer/Habschied site in the forest, where two distinct firearms had
been extensively used, as well as a sharp implement, possibly a sword or
machete, that pathologist Dr Bradhurst thought may have been employed to
decapitate Ms Habschied in a ceremonial style of execution.
On 21 May 1994 police went to the home of Ivan Milat’s brother, Alex
Milat, in Queensland where Alex resided with his wife, Joan. Alex had
previously, on 18 October 1993, provided police with an unusual statement
about an incident he alleged he had witnessed on 26 April 1992 (which was
eight days after the disappearance of Clarke and Walters). He said that he and
a friend had just left the Bowral Pistol Club and were driving on Belanglo
Road toward the Hume Highway when he had seen two vehicles with a
number of male passengers being driven on Belanglo Road heading toward
the forest. He stated that he had seen a gagged female in each car and a
shotgun in the possession of one of the passengers in the lead car. The police
were uncertain what to make of this statement. Was Alex Milat in possession
of significant knowledge? Was he hinting at something? Was he setting up a
wrong trail for police to follow?
On this visit by police to Alex’s home in Queensland, Joan handed to police
a Salewa brand multi-coloured backpack which she told police Ivan Milat had
given to her sometime after April 1992. She stated that at the time he gave it
to her, Ivan had told her that a friend of his, who was returning to New
Zealand, had given it to him as they no longer needed it. The police were
quickly able to establish, by comparing the complex material pattern on the
backpack with a photograph in their possession provided to them, that this
was the backpack that Simone Schmidl had with her when she disappeared.6
Ivan Milat would assert at the trial that he had seen this backpack in the
garage at his mother’s home in Guildford, and that his brother Richard Milat
had told him that it had belonged to Graham Pittaway (an acquaintance of
Ivan Milat) or Pittaway’s girlfriend and now belonged to no-one, so that it
was up for grabs. Richard Milat, when later questioned, did not recall

[page 11]

any such conversation, and there was no evidence the backpack had been
through the hands of Pittaway or his girlfriend.
Task Force Air’s Commander, Superintendent Clive Small, must by this
point have considered that the task force was now in possession of compelling
evidence, and promptly determined that the best way forward with the
investigation would be to obtain warrants and simultaneously conduct
searches, not only of Ivan Milat’s home at Eagle Vale but also of the
properties of various members of the Milat family, in the hope of finding
relevant items of evidence. Accordingly, early on the morning of 22 May 1994
police units swooped on and searched Ivan Milat’s home at Eagle Vale, his
brother Walter Milat’s home at Hilltop,7 his brother Richard Milat’s home,
also at Hilltop, his mother’s home at Guildford, and an acreage at Wombeyan
Caves jointly owned by Walter and Richard, where some family members,
including Ivan, went on occasion for shooting and camping trips. Police also
attended and searched a property at Buxton owned by Alex Milat. The items
that were found that day provided a treasure trove of evidence that
overwhelmingly implicated Ivan Milat in the murders.
It will assist in following the cross-examination of Ivan Milat at his trial to
set out briefly here the more significant items that police located at the
various properties.

IVAN MILAT’S HOUSE AT EAGLE VALE

1.5 Prior to entering the Eagle Vale premises, a member of Task Force Air
who was a trained negotiator telephoned Ivan Milat at 6.36 am to advise that
there were police around his premises, they had a warrant to search the
premises in relation to an armed holdup matter (the Onions matter) and he
was to come out with his arms extended. Milat initially responded that he
thought it was a joke from someone at work and didn’t come out. In the
meantime, a constable posted outside heard noises coming from Milat’s
garage and twice heard what sounded like a car door opening and closing.
More than 12 minutes elapsed before Milat and his girlfriend, Chalinder
Hughes, appeared. After the house was secured, Milat was taken back inside
by two task force detectives, while the search was carried out of the four
bedroom premises.8
Hidden inside a wall cavity, to which access could only be gained from the
roof space via a manhole in the garage, police located a white plastic bag
containing a Ruger trigger assembly, bolt assembly, spring and guide,
‘Ramline’ magazine and two pieces of cloth from a shirt.9 With the bag was
also found a 10-shot Ruger rotary box magazine.

[page 12]

In bedroom 3, police located a number of .22 calibre cartridges of Eley

brand ammunition with an ‘E’ head stamp10 and Winchester Brand
ammunition with an ‘H’ head stamp. The Winchester ammunition was
consistent with that found at the Clarke murder scene. Also found was an
amount of New Zealand and Indonesian bank notes. Whereas Milat had not
been out of Australia in the relevant period, Schmidl had travelled in New
Zealand and Neugebauer and Habschied had travelled in Indonesia, before
coming to Australia. There was a postcard from a friend of Ivan Milat,
addressing him as ‘Bill’, and there was a roll of black electrical tape.
In bedroom 4, police found a camouflage-painted Bowie knife,11 boxes of
Eley brand ammunition, a broken barrel band12 from a Ruger 10/22 rifle, a
Ruger 10/22 instruction manual, a receipt for a Winchester shot gun in the
name of Norman Chong, various firearm parts including grip plates fro a Colt
revolver, Winchester and other makes of ammunition of .45, .38 (copper
tipped) and .32 calibre, enamel model hobby paints including one
indistinguishable from one of the camouflage colours on the Ruger trigger
mechanism found in the wall cavity, a green plastic water bottle with the
name ‘Simi’ (which was Simone Schmidl’s nickname) written on it in two
places,13 a paintball mask painted in camouflage colours14 and other items.
In bedroom 1 were found various photo albums, a Salewa brand sleeping
bag (in respect of which Ivan Milat admitted, for the purpose of the trial, that
the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that this had been in the
possession of Schmidl at or immediately before her death)15 and a green
sleeping bag identified as belonging to Deborah Everist by her brother.16
In the garage were found a number of items in respect of which Ivan Milat
admitted, for the purpose of the trial, that the only reasonable inference to be
drawn was they had been in the possession of Schmidl at or immediately
before her death. These included a Salewa sleeping bag cover, a Vau de

[page 13]

Hogan brand tent,17 a green tent peg bag and pegs, a green bag containing an
aluminium tent frame and an elasticised Compact-o-Mat brand compression
band for strapping camping gear.18 Also found in the garage were a
homemade silencer,19 a variety of .45 calibre ammunition suitable for use in a
pistol or revolver, a roll of black electrical tape, 12 black plastic cable ties of
the same type and manufacture as the cable tie used in the ‘leash device’
found at the Neugebauer/Habschied scene, a green and white striped pillow
case containing five lengths of sash cord indistinguishable from that used in
the ‘leash device’, one of which had blood on it20 that DNA testing established
to have a profile consistent with coming from a child of Caroline Clarke’s
parents, a butt plate21 suitable for a Ruger 10/22 rifle, and a large bag
containing a quantity of rags.
In the hall cupboard, inside a pair of HY Test brand work boots, was a
Ruger receiver,22 serial number 120-15357, with camouflage paint on it
matching that on the Ruger parts found in the wall cavity. This receiver was
proven to have been part of a Ruger 10/22 sold second-hand by a man named
Komarek to the Horsley Park Gun Shop in early 1988. When Komarek had
sold the gun it had no camouflage paint on it. Ivan Milat admitted at trial that
he frequented the gun shop and had purchased guns there using a shooter’s
licence in the name of Norman Chong, a licence that Walter Milat claimed to
have found and to have occasionally loaned to Ivan Milat. Ivan Milat denied
ever purchasing the Ruger 10/22 previously owned by Komarek or, indeed,
any other Ruger 10/22, although Walter Milat gave evidence that Ivan Milat
had owned a Ruger 10/22 rifle that Walter had wanted to purchase from him.
Also found in the hall cupboard was a map of the Southern Highlands
including the Belanglo State Forest.
Under the washing machine in the laundry was found a Browning .32
calibre pistol, with a pouch, ammunition and magazine.23 Ivan Milat’s former
wife identified the pistol as his gun that he used to keep at times under the
driver’s seat of his car.
In the kitchen was found an Olympus ‘Trip’ 35 mm camera that was
identical to one owned by Caroline Clarke.24 The serial number established
that the camera had been shipped from the factory in Malaysia to England,
for sale, about 14 months before Clarke left the United Kingdom for

[page 14]

Australia. Also found, in the kitchen pantry, was a portable camp cooking set
that was identified as Schmidl’s.25 On the kitchen bench was found a radio
scanner belonging to Ivan Milat, painted camouflage — when examined by
police it was found to be tuned to the police frequency.
In the family room, police found a manual entitled Select Fire 10/22 with
Ivan Milat’s fingerprint on it — this was a manual for converting a Ruger
10/22 rifle into a fully automatic weapon.26 Police also located a photo album
containing a photograph of Chalinder Hughes wearing a green and white
coloured Benetton brand shirt identical to one owned by Caroline Clarke,
which Chalinder (who was called by the defence) claimed to have taken from
the laundry at the Eagle Vale premises and worn that day only, assuming that
it belonged to Ivan Milat’s sister Shirley (who also resided in the home at
Eagle Vale for a time). However, evidence in the prosecution case established
that the laundry at the Eagle Vale premises had not yet been built as at the
date written on the back of the photo by Ivan Milat. There were also
photographs of Ivan Milat inside the Eagle Vale house dressed as a cowboy
holding a Winchester 30/30 repeating rifle, with a packet of Winchester 30/30
cartridges.
In the garage was a red Holden Jackaroo four-wheel drive vehicle27 (this
vehicle had replaced Ivan Milat’s Nissan Patrol). In the car were packets of .22
calibre ammunition. In the console between the driver’s and front passenger’s
seats was a 1989 English 20-pence coin,28 some cartridge adaptors for a
revolver29 and a threaded barrel cap30 that was suitable for use on the
Anschutz rifle31 found among Ivan Milat’s property in the alcove at Walter
Milat’s home at Hilltop. There was also found in the car console a green
rubber surgical glove.32

WALTER MILAT’S PROPERTY AT HILLTOP

1.6 There was evidence that Ivan Milat had, in about March 1994, arranged
for a substantial number of items, including firearms and ammunition, to be
moved from Eagle Vale to an alcove under Walter Milat’s house in Hilltop.
Walter Milat stated that the property found in the alcove of his home had
been brought there for storage from Eagle Vale at Ivan’s request, and that he
and their brother Richard had helped Ivan to move it there.

[page 15]

In the alcove was found a High Sierra brand day pack33 in respect of which
Ivan Milat admitted, for the purpose of the trial, that the only reasonable
inference to be drawn was that it had been in the possession of Schmidl at or
immediately before her death. Also found were an Anschutz .22 repeating
rifle with a threaded barrel and cap and an Anschutz breech bolt consistent
for use with the rifle.34 The bolt was wrapped in a piece of flannelette shirt
cloth (cloth indistinguishable from a piece of shirt cloth found in a model
airplane box in bedroom 4 at the Eagle Vale premises)35 inside a haversack
that had the name ‘Ivan’ written on the inside flap. The Anschutz rifle was
wrapped up in a blanket together with a Winchester 30/30 repeating rifle
identical to the one seen in the photograph of Ivan Milat dressed as a
cowboy.36
Ivan Milat did not dispute at the trial that Neugebauer had been shot by
someone with the Anschutz rifle. However, he claimed that although he had
bought the gun while he had been living at Guildford he had sold it to his
brother Walter Milat for $150 and thereafter only saw it occasionally. Walter
Milat denied this, saying he could not afford to buy it, although he had at
times borrowed it from Ivan Milat, sometimes for months at a time, and used
it on shooting trips, possibly in the Belanglo State Forest.
There was also found in the alcove some Winchester Winner brand .22
calibre ammunition with a batch number ACDICF2 on the box.37 This was
the same as the batch number on the empty box of Winchester ammunition
found at Area A at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene.38 There was
also found a complete and unused Ruger 10/22 rifle in a box;39 it had been
purchased from the Horsley Park Gun Shop on 4th April 1992 using a
shooter’s licence in the name of Graham Pittaway. Pittaway was a friend of
Ivan Milat who was in New Zealand on the date of the purchase. It was the
instruction manual for this rifle that was found in the family room at Eagle
Vale, and the date ‘4492’ had been written on it in Ivan Milat’s hand.40 At the
trial, Walter Milat claimed that he had purchased this gun using Pittaway’s
licence, with money provided by Ivan Milat, and that he had left it at Ivan’s
home a few days after its purchase. Also found in the alcove were 12 packets
of Eley .22 calibre ammunition, batch number J23CGA. Ammunition with
this same batch number was also found in bedroom 4 at

[page 16]

the Eagle Vale premises. In Area A at the Neugebauer/Habschied site had

been found an Eley ammunition box with a batch number that could be read
in all but one of the characters (which had faded from weathering) — the
number on that box was J2(3 or 6)CGA. There was also found some
Winchester subsonic .22 calibre ammunition with a ‘W’ head stamp
consistent with the empty cartridge cases found in Area A. In a wooden box
painted camouflage colours, the police found a .44 calibre black powder
revolver and black powder,41 which Ivan Milat admitted was his. There was
also an SKK rifle painted in camouflage colours that Ivan Milat admitted was
his and that he had painted it.

RICHARD MILAT’S PROPERTY AT HILLTOP

1.7 In a shed at Richard Milat’s Hilltop property was a louvre door cupboard
that, according to Richard Milat and his friend Elizabeth Smith, contained
property that had been taken from a cupboard at the Milats’ Guildford home,
as their mother had been considering selling the house. According to Richard
Milat, his mother had told him he could take what he wanted from the
cupboard at Guildford. Ivan Milat denied having had anything to do with any
of this property. Inside the louvre door cupboard police located Joanne
Walters’ Caribee brand sleeping bag,42 in relation to which, for the purposes
of the trial, Ivan Milat made an admission that the only reasonable inference
was that this had been in Walters’ possession at or immediately before the
time of her death. Also found was a blue three-person tent and poles that the
prosecution alleged were Caroline Clarke’s,43 in respect of which Ivan Milat
made a similar admission for the purposes of the trial, although Richard Milat
maintained that the tent and poles were Richard’s own. Also located there
was a Karrimat brand sleeping mat44 and an orange Ultimate brand sleeping
bag,45 in relation to each of which Ivan Milat, for the purpose of the trial,
admitted that the only reasonable inference was that they had been in Clarke’s
possession at or immediately before the time her death.
Also found at Richard Milat’s property, in the boot of his vehicle, was a
length of blue and yellow braided ‘Telecom’ rope of the same kind as the one
found in ‘Area A’.46 According to Ivan Milat’s former wife Karen, Ivan Milat
used to have such a rope to secure things to his trailer. Richard Milat also
admitted to having rope of this type.

[page 17]

MARGARET MILAT’S HOME AT GUILDFORD

1.8 Ivan Milat had lived at this address between 1987 and 1993, prior to
moving to Eagle Vale. In the garage at Guildford, police found a light denim
Next brand shirt in a box on the floor.47 It was found beside a blue checked
KMart brand shirt that Ivan Milat admitted in evidence belonged to him.
Evidence established that the Next brand shirt had been sold exclusively in
England, last selling in the 1986 season. Paul Onions identified this as one of
his shirts that had been in his backpack when he had left it in ‘Bill’s’ car,
although it was dirtier now and had some red stitching along the length of the
collar that had not been there when it was manufactured or in Onion’s
possession.
Also in the garage, on a workbench, was a yellow t-shirt that the evidence
established had been exclusively sold by Hallenstein Brothers in
Christchurch, New Zealand.48 The prosecution case was that this t-shirt had
been purchased by Schmidl from Hallenstein Brothers on 20 December 1990.
In a bedroom belonging to David Milat, another brother of Ivan, was found
a cavalry sword. Ivan Milat denied ever owning this item.
In a grey metal locker49 were located a Lithgow Slazenger Hornet .22
calibre rifle engraved with the name ‘Ivan’ and a .22 calibre JW15 Clayco rifle
with a threaded barrel. Ivan Milat admitted that the locker and its contents
belonged to him.

THE WOMBEYAN CAVES PROPERTY OF WALTER AND RICHARD MILAT

AND THE BUXTON PROPERTY OF ALEX MILAT
1.9 It was part of the prosecution case that Ivan Milat had attended these two
properties from time to time and this had included for shooting trips.
Significant finds at these properties were four .22 calibre Winchester Winner
fired cartridge cases found at Wombeyan Caves, and another four found at
Buxton, which ballistics evidence called by the prosecution established had
tool marks upon them that were consistent with having been fired by a rifle
fitted with the bolt assembly that had been located in the wall cavity at the
Eagle Vale home.

THE DEFENCE SUGGESTS THAT A MEMBER OF THE MILAT FAMILY, OR A

CLOSE ASSOCIATE, MUST HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS
1.10 Ivan Milat’s defence counsel, Terry Martin, made a dramatic, but
perhaps inevitable, concession when he submitted to the jury at the beginning
of his closing address at the trial (at p 3330 of the transcript):
 [page 18]

There can be absolutely no doubt that whoever committed all eight offences must be within
the Milat family or very, very closely associated to it. Blind Freddy can see that. There can be
absolutely no doubt.

And a little later (at p 3331 of the transcript):

… whichever way you look at it, it is absolutely irrefutable that whoever has committed these
eight offences must be either within the Milat family or so very closely associated with it, it
does not much matter. Blind Freddy can see that. There can be absolutely no doubt. The
question is, who is it within the Milat family who has committed these eight offences? The
question is, do you have a reasonable doubt that it was Ivan Milat as opposed to someone else
in the family? Well, that is the starting point. It has to be.

It is important to note that this statement by defence counsel was not itself
evidence, but rather a submission made in the defence closing arguments,
presumably with a view to convincing the jury that they might have a
reasonable doubt, on the evidence, as to whether Ivan Milat was the killer.
However, this argument ultimately was rejected by the jury as clearly
indicated by the verdict.
The defence argued that it was reasonably possible that Richard Milat may
have acted with Walter Milat or an unnamed associate in committing the
murders, and then planted incriminating evidence on Ivan Milat’s residence
at Eagle Vale and in the alcove at Walter’s residence. It was suggested that
comments made by Richard Milat to two witnesses, prior to the location of
some of the bodies, were indicative of Richard having some knowledge at
least of some of the murders, although Richard Milat denied these
conversations occurred. The jury was clearly not persuaded by these
arguments. In addition, Ivan Milat denied having any knowledge that either
Richard or Walter were involved. Ivan Milat maintained that the items
belonging to the deceased backpackers that were found at the Eagle Vale
home and in the alcove at Walter Milat’s property had all previously been
located at Margaret Milat’s home in Guildford (where he had been residing at
the time of the murders and the offence against Onions) and the items had
either been deliberately planted at Eagle Vale by someone or had been
brought there innocently by him from the collective mix of items available
from Guildford.
The prosecution, on the other hand, pointed to evidence of good relations
that Ivan had both with Richard and Walter, and the absence of any motive to
plant evidence on their brother Ivan.
Paul Onions’ account of the attack on him involved only one attacker,
whom he identified as Ivan Milat, who had a gun and a bag of ropes with

[page 19]

him. It is not difficult to imagine how a strong man acting alone with these
items might have compelled even two persons into submission.
Of significance was the fact that there was clear evidence that Ivan Milat
was not at work on any of the days that victims went missing, although he set
up an alibi in relation to Boxing Day, 1991 (the date of the disappearance of
Neugebauer and Habschied) when, he asserted, he was at his mother’s home
at Guildford for a family gathering. However, the jury clearly found this alibi
to be unconvincing after it had been tested and severely weakened in cross-
examination, and weighed up with the other evidence in the case.
The prosecution case was that one person, either alone or with another or
others, was involved in the murder of all seven victims and the offence against
Paul Onions, and that Ivan Milat was that person. While there was an
abundance of evidence to establish an overwhelming case against Ivan Milat
in respect of all of the offences in the indictment, the prosecution had to
accept the plain fact that there simply was insufficient compelling evidence to
establish a case against any other known person, including any other
members of the Milat family, even though it appeared reasonably possible
that other persons may have participated with Ivan Milat in one or more of
the murders. Whatever suspicions may have lingered about any friend or
relative of Ivan Milat, the evidence against anyone else never rose above mere
suspicion, and certainly could not establish the participation of any known
person, apart from Ivan Milat, beyond reasonable doubt, in spite of the
intensive and massive gathering of evidence by Task Force Air.
The prosecution was entitled to, and did, rely on the legal doctrine of ‘joint
criminal enterprise’. Essentially, the effect of this doctrine is that if two or
more persons participate together in carrying out a crime they have agreed
upon then they are each regarded in law as responsible for the actions of one
another in carrying out that enterprise. Thus, the prosecution had only to
establish that Ivan Milat participated in the murders, either alone or with one
or more other persons; it was not necessary to establish in relation to each
murder which of the participants (if, indeed, there was more than one)
stabbed, shot or killed the individual victims.
The prosecution also relied on ‘co-incidence evidence’ pursuant to Pt 3.6 of
the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Thus, the trial judge, David Hunt CJ at CL,
was asked to instruct the jury that the evidence in relation to Paul Onions was
admissible as co-incidence evidence in support of the murder charges in
respect of the seven deceased backpackers, provided that certain prerequisites
of the law were met. In order for the evidence to be used in this way the
Crown had to establish three things: that the events of all eight offences (the
seven murders and the detaining for advantage of Onions) were substantially
similar when all of the evidence in the case was considered; that all eight
offences occurred in substantially similar circumstances; and

[page 20]

that, as a matter of commonsense and experience, it was so improbable that

the person who attacked Onions was not also involved in a criminal
enterprise (alone or in company) to murder the other seven, that no other
reasonable explanation was available for those similarities.
Justice Hunt, in ruling that it was open for the Crown to rely on this ‘co-
incidence evidence’, noted that the Crown relied upon a ‘signature pattern’
that it argued could be seen in the circumstances in which all eight offences
were committed. His Honour was of the view that the probative value of this
evidence manifestly and overwhelmingly outweighed any prejudicial effect it
may have had, because of the objective improbability of there being any
reasonable possibility that a different person was involved in both the
detention of Onions and the seven murders. His Honour was of the view that
this was an irresistible conclusion.

IVAN MILAT’S FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE NISSAN PATROL

1.11 At the time of all of the murders, and of Paul Onions’ encounter with
‘Bill’, Ivan Milat owned a 1987 model two-door four-wheel drive Nissan
Patrol. It was silver in colour with a red stripe down the side. It was not
disputed at the trial that it was owned and used by Ivan Milat during the
relevant years. Ivan had purchased this vehicle new and kept it until
September 1992, when he traded it in for a Holden Jackaroo. Paul Onion’s
description of the vehicle he rode in with Bill matched the vehicle in almost
every detail. He said that it was a four-wheel drive, either a Nissan or a
Toyota, with two doors, a wheel on the back, bull-bars, a running board, big
tyres and lambswool seat covers. He described it as either white or silver. Mrs
Berry, the woman who drove Onions to the Bowral police station, also
described the vehicle as having a spare wheel on the back and a red or
crimson stripe along the side. Onions also referred to a spare wheel on the
back, and in court (after being shown a photograph of the vehicle) he added
that he thought it had chrome wheel trims. The defence asserted that the
vehicle did not have a spare tyre on the back or chrome wheel trims at the
time (these both were added later), and the prosecution did not dispute this.
The Court of Criminal Appeal50 noted in relation to this issue (at p 11):
 Mr Onions said, in his evidence, that the vehicle had a wheel attached vertically at the rear.
Many Nissan 4WD vehicles have such a spare wheel, but it was shown that the appellant’s did
not have one in January 1990, although one was fitted later. A similar statement about the
vehicle was also made by the rather terrified woman into whose car Mr Onions had jumped.
The jury were [sic] entitled to take the

[page 21]

view that this evidence, of Mr Onions and the woman, was mistaken. Indeed, what may have
been at work is an example of the well known displacement effect about which trial judges
commonly warn juries in relation to photographic identification.

And (at pp 28–9):

If, as the jury were [sic] entitled to conclude, Mr Onions was mistaken about the rear
mounting on the vehicle, it is not difficult to understand how such a mistake could have been
made. As was noted earlier, the first time Mr Onions came out with the proposition about the
rear wheel seems to have been in 1994, more than four years after the event. It is not clear
what photographs he had been shown before then, but it is clear that, in the course of giving
his evidence at the trial in 1996, he was shown by the Crown Prosecutor, in a leading fashion,
photographs of a silver Nissan Patrol which had a vertically mounted rear spare wheel. That
he may have made a mistake is not inconsistent with his evidence being otherwise reliable.

Ivan Milat traded in his Nissan to a dealer, and it was then sold by another
dealer to a Mr Gill. In mid 1993 Mr Gill was vacuuming the car when he
located a bullet under the vinyl flooring. It proved to be an unfired Eley .22
calibre round and he kept it, and he was able to provide this to the police
when, in March 1994, they spoke to him about the car. The car was
thoroughly examined by scientific officers, and a bullet hole was discovered in
the passenger side door consistent with a .22 calibre bullet being fired from
inside the vehicle towards someone sitting in the passenger seat.51 The hole
had been repaired with body filler and paint by a Guildford neighbour of Ivan
Milat, Mr El-Hallak. Ivan Milat had told El-Hallak that his rifle had accidently
gone off in the car during a hunting trip. El-Hallak told police he had
completed the job in three days. In the vehicle’s log book (retrieved by police
from Mr Gill’s possession) was an entry in Ivan Milat’s handwriting stating:
‘LHD repair (or repaint) 10/1/92 73,000 kilometres’. ‘LHD’ almost certainly
was shorthand for ‘left hand door’. Thus, the repairs were done within a
fortnight of the disappearance of Neugebauer and Habschied. It will be
recalled that there were Eley cartridge cases found at the scene of their
murders.

THE NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL DISMISSES

MILAT’S APPEAL
1.12 The Court of Criminal Appeal also found no error in the following
remarks of Hunt CJ at CL in his judgment of 5 September 1996, relating to
evidentiary rulings he had made during the trial, including the evidence of

[page 22]

Onions having identified Ivan Milat in the photo identification procedure (at
p 31):
Although there were indeed frailties in Mr Onions’ identification evidence — principally the
fact that there were only three photographs in which the man pictured could be said to have
had a Merv Hughes moustache, and of those three in only one (that of the accused) did the
man otherwise fairly fit the description that Mr Onions had given — it seems to me that this
could adequately be dealt by directions leaving it to the jury to determine whether the
identification made by Mr Onions in the context of all of the evidence relevant to the third
count was reliable.

It was upon that basis that I declined to exclude the May 1994 identification evidence. I
should add, as a postscript, that the case was ultimately also left to the jury upon an
alternative basis that, in the event that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
Mr Onions’ identification in May 1994 was reliable, but in the light of the concession that
there could be no doubt that it was a member of the Milat family who was responsible for the
detention of Mr Onions, they could still be satisfied that it was the accused who detained him
based upon the description which Mr Onions gave of his attacker to the police in January
1990, provided that the Crown had eliminated any reasonable possibility that it could have
been any of the other members of the family. In my view, that description, in the light of the
concession which was made in the final address for the accused, was in any event powerful
 evidence supporting the reliability of the identification made by Mr Onions in May 1994,
although I did not put it to the jury in that way.

The Court of Criminal Appeal also found the case against Ivan Milat to be
a powerful and compelling one, as indicated by the following extract from the
court’s decision that neatly summarises much of the significant evidence in
relation to incriminating items located by police (at pp 16–21):
At the time of his arrest in 1994 the appellant was living at [number] [XXXXXXXX
XXXXXX], Eagle Vale. He had previously been living at his mother’s home. He also had some
belongings which were being stored for him at the house of his brother, Walter Milat. There
was a great deal of evidence concerning items of personal property found by the police, some
of it at the appellant’s house at [Eagle Vale], some of it amongst belongings of the appellant at
his mother’s house, and some of it at Walter Milat’s house. The detail of some of that
evidence will be discussed below.

[page 23]

The Crown built up a powerful circumstantial case against the appellant. The circumstances
relied upon, and which the jury were [sic] entitled to regard as proved, were the following:

(1) The accused was in possession of a substantial amount of the deceased

backpackers’ property at his house at [Eagle Vale], with his own property in
the alcove under Walter Milat’s house, and at his mother’s house in
Guildford where he was living at the time of the murders.
(2) The accused owned the Ruger 10/22 which was used to shoot Caroline
Clarke and Gabor Neugebauer.
(3) The accused was in Area A at the same time, or at much the same time, as
Gabor Neugebauer was shot there with that Ruger 10.22, because his
Anschutz rifle was used there.
(4) The Winchester Winner ammunition located with the accused’s property
in the alcove under Walter Milat’s house had the same batch number as
that apparently used in Area A where Gabor Neugebauer was shot, having
been manufactured during the day shift at the Winchester factory at
Geelong.
(5) The Winchester Winner ammunition with an ‘H’ head stamp located in the
accused’s bedroom and in the spare room at [Eagle Vale], and the
Winchester Subsonic ammunition with a ‘W’ head stamp located with the
accused’s property in the alcove under Walter’s house, were consistent with
 cartridge cases located in Area A where Gabor Neugebauer was shot.
(6) The batch number on Eley ammunition located with the accused’s property
in the spare room at [Eagle Vale] corresponded with that on an Eley box
located at Area A where Gabor Neugebauer was shot.
(7) The bullets recovered from and under the head of Caroline Clarke had a
gouge mark, most likely from a silencer fixed to a rifle. The accused had a
handmade silencer in his garage at [Eagle Vale], and had stated an
intention to purchase a factory made one.
(8) The accused left his Nissan with his neighbour, Mr El-Hallak, to repair the
damage caused by a bullet having discharged inside it, just over a week after
Anja Habschied and Gabor Neugebauer disappeared.
(9) The accused was in possession of a piece of rope which was used in the
murder of Caroline Clarke.
(10) The ingredients of the leash device at the Neugebauer scene were all
available to the accused in his home at [Eagle Vale].

[page 24]

(11) Industrial recycled rags were used at the killings of Walters, Habschied,
Neugebauer and Schmidl and in the storage of some ballistics.
(12) The accused carried a Bowie knife in his car which could have been used to
stab the victims.
(13) The pattern of all seven murders is the same.
(14) The accused’s attack upon Paul Onions was a thwarted attempt to take him
into the Belanglo State Forest where he was to be killed.

The property referred to in (1) above included the following. Simone Schmidl’s blue sleeping
bag cover was found in the appellant’s garage at [Eagle Vale]. It containing [sic] a number of
her personal belongings. Her sleeping bag was in a bedroom in the house. Her water bottle
and pouch were in another room. Her name, ‘Simi’, was on the bottle. Her backpack was in
the possession of the appellant’s sister-in-law, who said the appellant had given it to her.
Caroline Clarke’s camera was found in the kitchen at [Eagle Vale]. There was found a
photograph of the appellant’s girlfriend, Chalinder Hughes, shown wearing a Benetton top
identical to one Caroline Clarke had in her backpack. A sleeping bag said to belong to
Deborah Everist was found in a bedroom at [Eagle Vale]. Reference has already been made to
Paul Onions’ shirt.

It was, presumably, this kind of evidence that led trial counsel for the appellant to say in his
final address:
 There can be absolutely no doubt that whoever committed all eight offences
must be within the Milat family or very, very closely associated with it.

Even that concession, however, does less than justice to the significance of the precise location
of many of the items of property found.

As to (2) above, the evidence showed, and it was not ultimately disputed, that Gabor
Neugebauer and Caroline Clarke was [sic] shot by a Ruger 10/22 firearm to which a certain
Ruger bolt assembly had been fitted. The Crown relied upon the following sub-set of
circumstances, which the jury were [sic] entitled to regard as established by the evidence, to
prove that the appellant owned the Ruger 10/22:

(1) The Ruger parts were well hidden in the wall cavity at [Eagle Vale] at a time
when the accused knew of the significance of the bolt assembly to the
backpacker murders.
(2) A Ruger receiver was found apparently hidden in the accused’s boot when
the police called upon him to surrender.
(3) The Ruger parts were painted in camouflage colours when no Milat, other
than the accused, was in the habit of painting his weapons in that way.

[page 25]

(4) The ‘Select Fire 10/22’ book in his possession explained how a Ruger 10/22
could be converted into a fully automatic weapon.
(5) The fifty shot magazine in his possession was more appropriate to a fully
automatic weapon than the standard ten shot magazine provided.
(6) The single fired Winchester cartridge case amongst the accused’s
ammunition in a bag in the spare room at [Eagle Vale] was at least
consistent with having been fired by a Ruger 10/22 to which this bolt
assembly had been fitted, and (according to Detective Superintendent
Prior) actually fired by it.
(7) The Winchester Winner ammunition box in his possession had the same
batch number as that apparently used in Area A where Gabor Neugebauer
was shot.
(8) Other Winchester ammunition in his possession had the same head stamps
(‘H’ and ‘W’) as that located in Area A where Gabor Neugebauer was shot.
(9) Either the silencer in his possession or one which he was purchasing could
have been used when Caroline Clarke was shot.
(10) He was a customer of the Horsley Park Gun Shop at the time when the
 Ruger 10/22 was sold.
(11) He adopted a procedure when Walter purchased the so-called ‘new’ Ruger
10/22 on behalf of the accused in 1992 which prevented its purchase being
traced to him.
(12) He was in possession of a Ruger 10/22 before that time which Walter had
unsuccessfully attempted to purchase.
(13) This particular Ruger 10/22 to which the bolt assembly located in the wall
cavity had been fitted had been used at Buxton and at the Wombeyan
Caves Road property where the accused had been shooting.
(14) The bolt assembly was wrapped in two pieces of cloth which were similar in
nature to the rag which the accused had wrapped around the bolt of a rifle
located in his locker at Guildford.

There is no ground of appeal which argues that it was not reasonably open to the jury to be
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the appellant.

The evidence in the case for the prosecution against Ivan Milat was
immensely strong, but it was complex and required a very thorough mastery
of its facts, twists and turns in order to present the strength and the
irresistible logic of it in a clear light to a jury. From the way the defence case
had been conducted during the defence cross-examination of some
prosecution witnesses, it seemed likely that some attempt would be made

[page 26]

by the defence to suggest that the culprit was someone else within, or close to,
the Milat family.
Ivan Milat took the stand, and in response to questioning from his counsel,
Terry Martin, he denied any involvement in any of the charges. He raised the
suggestion that items may have been planted by someone (but not the police)
in order to incriminate him, yet he stopped short of directly nominating who
such a person might be. Martin’s opening address sets out the essential
assertions of the defence case, and is reproduced below (from the trial
transcript for 17 June 1996):
Mr Milat will tell you that he did not kill any of the backpackers, nor did he have any
connection with the offences, nor any knowledge of these matters.

He will tell you that he did not attack Paul Onions or have any connection with or knowledge
of that offence.

Mr Milat never owned a Ruger 10/22 rifle. He will tell you that he had absolutely no
knowledge of those parts found in the cavity at [Eagle Vale], nor in the boot in the cupboard,
the receiver in the cupboard at [Eagle Vale] until after these proceedings were under way. He
had no knowledge of the existence of those parts whatsoever.

In relation to the Anschutz rifle, Mr Milat purchased the Anschutz rifle but as far as he knew,
Walter Milat had possession of that particular gun for months at a time from a period shortly
after the rifle was purchased.

The rifle had a threaded barrel at the time of purchase by Mr Milat. It already had the
threaded barrel on it. That’s how it was purchased.

Walter Milat wanted the rifle and there was an arrangement to pay, as Mr Milat recalls, about
$150 for it — that money never having been paid.

Whilst he was still living at Guildford, Mr Ivan Milat recalls seeing that rifle there on
occasions, but effectively the rifle was with Walter Milat, presumably was with Walter Milat.
From time to time he would see it at Guildford amongst his other property, but otherwise it
was missing, as I say, for months at a time.

As far as Mr Milat knows, the Anschutz did not go over to [Eagle Vale] from Guildford and
therefore it was not in the move of weapons and ammunition from [Eagle Vale] to Walter
Milat’s place.

Members of the jury, Mr Milat will tell you that he knows and has known for a long time
where the Belanglo State Forest is. He has

[page 27]

worked on the roads throughout New South Wales and he has worked nearby the Belanglo
State Forest. He has been to Bowral Pistol Club, but he will tell you that he has never been
into the forest itself. He has certainly never been into the area described by Karen Milat. He
will tell you, you might recall that Karen Milat gave evidence that they went into the forest, I
think on three occasions during 1983. In 1983 he and Karen Milat had the Mitsubishi Colt,
they did not have a 4-wheel drive. Karen Milat assured you they had gone in with the 4-wheel
drive in 1983 on whatever occasions. The Mitsubishi 4-wheel drive was not manufactured
until 1984.

In relation to the Browning pistol, Mr Milat will tell you that he did own the Browning pistol
and he did have it when he was with Karen Milat. He will tell you that he has never seen that
weapon again until the commencement of these proceedings from the time that Karen Milat
left him back in 1987. He did not have that weapon, did not know of its existence at [Eagle
Vale] under the washing machine or anywhere else until after the proceedings started and the
police produced that weapon.

In relation to the black powder gun he will tell you that he owns the black powder gun you
have seen here in the box and he will tell you that he also owned a 45 calibre pistol, not a
revolver, and he has never owned a revolver.

In relation to items belonging to the deceased backpackers found at [Eagle Vale], he will tell
you that he did not bring those items into the house. He certainly had no knowledge of their
origins. In respect of most of the items he did not even know of their existence until after the
police proceedings. The other occupier of the house as you have heard was Shirley Soire, his
sister.

In relation to the Benetton top Mr Milat did not give such an item to Chalinder Hughes. He
can only recall what the shirt looks like from having seen the photographs tendered here in
this court.

In relation to the Triple S camera that was found at [Eagle Vale], Mr Milat will tell you that he
was indeed aware of a camera in the house and believed it was a Triple S, indeed he has used
the camera. He will tell you it is not his camera, he presumed it was Shirley’s camera and was
in the house when he was living there.

In relation to the backpack that was given to Joan Milat, that is Alex Milat’s wife, he will tell
you that he knew that Joan Milat was planning to go on a walking trip to Tasmania, he had
seen the backpack in the garage at Guildford, he gained the impression from Richard Milat
that it belonged to either Jock Pittaway or his girlfriend, it was not wanted any more, but they
had gone back to New Zealand and he

[page 28]

asked permission from Richard, who was living there at Guildford, if he could take the
backpack and that is what he did do and gave it to Joan Milat. In relation to items found at
[Richard Milat’s property at Hilltop] and Guildford, Mr Milat had no knowledge nor
connection with the items belonging to the deceased found at Richard’s place in [Hilltop], nor
did he have any knowledge nor connection with the Next shirt, he does not know that shirt
nor the grandfather style shirt which the police found at Guildford.

One of the items found you will recall at Richard’s place has been described as Ivan Milat’s
tent. Indeed it is but to the best of his recollection he last used that tent in 1992 and did not
have it thereafter. It was kept in brown bags, as you have seen, not in a hessian bag. When he
last saw it it was not in a hessian bag with rags as found at Richard’s place.

In relation to the items at Walter Milat’s place, Mr Milat will tell you that he does not own the
blue day pack. In relation to the haversack also found in the alcove he will tell you that he, as
did a lot of members of the family, he did have a haversack and they were used for the
purpose of carrying ammunition when they went shooting, things of that nature.

The one in the alcove at Walter’s place is not his haversack and he can point to certain
dissimilarities, not the least of which is it never had ‘Ivan’ written on it, he never wrote ‘Ivan’
on his haversack and he can point to other features about it which do not coincide with his
haversack and he will tell you that he did not see either item at [Eagle Vale] and as far as he is
concerned those items did not go over in the move to Walter’s place when all the guns and
ammunition were taken over.

In relation to items such as pull ties and sash cords, he will tell you that he has had access to
pull ties and to sash cords and electrical tape, both at Guildford and [Eagle Vale].

Whilst at Guildford anyone at the house could have access to those items and indeed any
property at the house at Guildford.

He had never seen a pillowslip and sash cords like that. As far as he knew, he had never seen
the pillowslip before. That is not contesting Karen’s evidence that it belonged to Margaret
Milat, but he has never known that item.

Certainly he had never seen a pillowslip carrying such cords and that goes to both at
Guildford and at [Eagle Vale]. He has never kept sash cords in a pillowslip.

[page 29]

He will tell you that he has never had a blue and yellow Telecom rope of the type that have
been tendered in this court — one found in the forest and one found at Richard’s place. He
disputes Karen Milat’s evidence. He never had a blue and yellow Telecom rope and as far as
he can recall he has never even seen one till these proceedings commenced.

He certainly did have sash cords and he certainly did use them, including the period when he
was with Karen Milat. They were a common rope that he used.
In relation to the moving of guns and ammunition from [Eagle Vale] to Walter Milat’s place,
he will tell you that what led up to the movement of guns and ammunition were these
features. He knew that Alex Milat had spoken to police in late 1993. He knew that Bill Ayers, a
friend of Alex, had been spoken to by police. He knew that Walter Milat had been questioned
by police about guns. I think Mr Leach today made some reference to that. He will tell you
that to the best of his recollection it was even before Christmas 1993, so late 1993, workmates
of his had been questioned by police — not only in relation to guns generally, but from what
the workmates told him, they were asking about guns of his. He recalls that to be late 1993.
Mr Leach indicated it may have been early 1994.

The JW15 rifle, which is one of the rifles in the locker at Guildford — and that is one of his
rifles; the rifles in the locker are his — that rifle — and you will get to see it later — was
threaded and he will tell you that it was threaded at work with the assistance of one of the
fitters.

One of the features concerning Mr Milat was that if the police spoke to that particular fitter it
would naturally lead them to look for a silencer connected with Mr Milat — silencers being
illegal at that time and apparently still are.

Any search of [Eagle Vale] at that time would not disclose a JW15 with a threaded barrel, but
if police searched at that time they would have found any number of illegal guns in his
possession.

As recently as I think a week ago, a list of those illegal guns was tendered in this court. So that
at this time a lot of people were being questioned about guns and Mr Milat believed that he
was going to be one of the persons questioned and perhaps searched for guns.

Another feature was that Shirley Soire, with whom he shared the house, had been
complaining about the amount of guns and ammunition kept in the house. He will tell you
that — and it may indeed be obvious from the stockpile of the photograph of the alcove —
that there was a huge amount of ammunition being kept at [Eagle Vale] prior to the move.
There were crates of it.

[page 30]

One of the complaints made was that of this ammunition being kept in the house at [Eagle
Vale]. He will tell you there was also an occasion round about that time when a workman had
to go up into the ceiling to do some work and Mr Milat was concerned that he would see the
great volume of weapons and ammunition there. He covered it up and monitored the
workman while he was there.

With those things that he knew about, Mr Milat contacted Walter Milat to see if it was all
right to move weapons and ammunition over to his place at some stage, telling him of some
of his concerns.

It was then some weeks later, as he recalls, and on a night when Mr Ivan Milat was supposed
to be doing night shift and the work was cancelled — for what reason he cannot now recall
whether it was the weather or whatever — but that then gave him an opportunity to make the
move that night.

He contacted Walter Milat to see if that suited. He didn’t really expect his assistance, but you
have heard that both Walter and Richard did assist him to take the stockpile of weapons and
ammunition over to Walter’s place. But to the best of Mr Milat’s recollection, that move took
place as early as just before Christmas 1993 or very early 1994. It took place as early as that.

Mr Milat has no knowledge of the Anschutz, the blue day pack and the haversack going over
in the move and therefore he believes that that must have been placed in the alcove
subsequent to the move. He has got no knowledge of seeing them being moved and therefore
he believes they must have been placed there subsequently.

I should indicate also in relation to the new or slightly used Ruger 10/22 — Mr Milat had no
knowledge of it being at [Eagle Vale] either and but for the evidence of Walter Milat, who told
you that he had brought that particular rifle over to [Eagle Vale] when Ivan Milat wasn’t
home at some stage, and placed it with other rifles there — but for hearing that evidence Mr
Milat would have thought that it was never at [Eagle Vale] and didn’t go over in the move. In
the light of that evidence perhaps it did, but he had no knowledge of its existence at [Eagle
Vale].

The police raid on Mr Milat as you recall was on 22 May 1994. Prior to the police raid but
bearing in mind other evidence that you have heard and what Mr Milat will tell you about
what information he was getting, the police were making enquiries in respect of guns and his
guns and as you have heard today about the police looking for Rugers and a 4 Corners
program making reference to Rugers and what-have-you, not only that but prior to the police
raid Mr Milat was made well aware that the police were investigating a matter concerning his
Nissan Patrol, which he no longer owned, but that vehicle and he was made

[page 31]

well aware of that on the night before the raid, the police had been out to see Deborah Milat
on the 21st and indeed Bill Milat on the 21st and he knew on the night of the 21st that they
had spoken to Deborah Milat at Buxton and knew that they had already spoken to Bill Milat
at Lake Tabourie and he knew that all before the police raid on the morning of the 22nd.

He will tell you that he was unconcerned by the news that they were making investigations in
respect of him and his vehicle. He will tell you as far as he was concerned if the police did
come the only gun that was there was the .45 calibre pistol, which was hidden outside, not
inside the house. He will describe where it was hidden outside and as indeed the police never
did find it; he certainly did not know that there were Ruger 10/22 parts hidden in the cavity of
the wall nor a Ruger 10/22 receiver stuck in his boot in the cupboard, nor that there was a
Browning under the washing machine and he certainly did not know that there were items
belonging to deceased backpackers lying around his house — lying around his house, you
know, for the police to find. He will tell you what he recalls that morning, the raid and the
arrest procedure.

Members of the jury, the Nissan Patrol motor vehicle that he owned between 1987 and 1992
takes on some significance as you are aware. There was no doubt that a number of features
described by Mr Onions are features which were on Mr Milat’s Nissan Patrol. However, there
are also significant dissimilarities as to the features that were on Mr Milat’s vehicle in January
1990 compared with those features seen by Mr Onions on the vehicle driven by the person
who attacked him, and it was not Mr Milat’s vehicle, he did not attack Paul Onions, it was not
his vehicle.

You will recall that both Mr Onions and Mrs Berry have referred to the vehicle having a rear
tyre rack and spare tyre on the back of the vehicle. Mr Milat did not have the tyre rack on the
back of the vehicle as at January 1990. Indeed he did not get the tyre rack until December
1990. You will also recall that Mr Onions refers to chrome on the wheels of the vehicle driven
by the person who attacked him. Mr Milat did not have chrome on the wheels until 1991 and
did not have the cover for the spare tyre on the back until 1991.

Now this evidence gets a bit convoluted, you will have to bear with us through this. The
Nissan was purchased in 1987 and there were accessories on the vehicle at the time of
purchase. It was sold something as a display vehicle with added extras, a U-Beaut vehicle, that
is how it was sold to him and did have accessories on it at the time of purchase and they
included not only the bull-bar and side steps but included the pinstripe and 4 Nissan 15 inch
× 7 inch wheels with 4 Desert Dueller tyres 15 inch × 10 inch and the tread was 604.

[page 32]

It had a standard spare tyre and had a standard spare tyre because it did not have the rack on
the back, therefore the standard spare tyre had to go underneath the vehicle, the spare is only
big enough for a standard spare tyre, it will not fit the Desert Dueller size or wide tyre size.

In about November or early December 1990 a person named Stanley Piddlesden sold to Ivan
Milat 6 wheels with tyres … There were actually 5 were really purchased and the sixth one
was sort of thrown in. There were 5 15 × 7 inch Nissan wheels fitted with 15 inch × 10 inch
Desert Duellers and the tread on those was 610, and the sixth wheel was again a 15 inch × 7
inch with 15 × 10 Desert Dueller but a different tread, was a 604.

In December 1990 after getting these tyres and wheels Mr Milat arranged by telephone to
have Formula Off-Road Equipment, that is Mr Badman’s outfit, fit a rear tyre rack to his
vehicle to enable Mr Milat to put the fifth wide Desert Dueller spare tyre on the back of his
vehicle and this was done, he recalls, on the last working day of the year, 21 December 1990
and Mr Milat recognised Mr Badman when he gave evidence the other day and you recall I
questioned him then about whether he did some work of an office salesman type work. He
will tell you that Mr Badman was the salesman that day and he recalls in discussions with Mr
Badman that Mr Badman told him that he had a late model Nissan Patrol himself, a 4-door
vehicle. That was just part of the discussion with Badman at the time of the work being
organised.

So the rack was put on — the tyre rack was put on and the five new wheels and tyres were put
on the vehicle on 7 January 1991 and one knows that because it is noted in the vehicle log that
has been tendered before this court. The chrome wheel trims and rear wheel tyre cover came
from Gerhard Soire a month or two after Ivan Milat got the new wheels and tyres on.

You will note in this trial that the police took possession of photographs everywhere they
could. Mr Milat does not have any other photographs other than those that the police have
taken possession of. So if there are no photographs of the vehicle in January 1990, February
1990 or December 1989 or whatever, he simply will tell you he has not got any photographs
secreted anywhere, the police as far as he knows took any photographs that were around.

The defence anticipates calling Mr Piddlesden in relation to these matters and also Gerhard
Soire and also Bill Milat who did get the benefit of at least most of the original wheels and
tyres that came off the Nissan Patrol, and Bill Milat will tell you what he did with the wheels
and tyres that he got. They ended up being sold at a garage sale, not till 1995, the original
ones.

[page 33]

I should indicate that the evidence will also disclose that the wheels on the Nissan Patrol, now
in the possession of Mr Gill, which Mr Milat says he got from Piddlesden in late 1990 — those
wheels were manufactured in October 1990.

The defence also anticipates calling a Ron Cochrane, who was an employee whilst Mr Barber
was the proprietor of Formula Off-Road and he continued on with the business after it
changed hands. He will tell you that he has looked at photographs of the rear tyre rack
currently on the Nissan Patrol owned by Mr Gill and he will tell you that the tyre rack is
 consistent with it having been put on in December 1990 — contrary to what Mr Badman said
to you the other day.

Don’t get me wrong, that is not to say it is inconsistent with the item being on in January
1990. It is consistent with it also having been put on in December 1990 — indeed they
continue to make and put on tyre racks of that very description to this day — contrary to
what Mr Badman said.

In relation to Boxing Day 1991, Mr Milat was at Guildford on that day. In the morning he
took his mother to the cemetery to visit the grave of his father, thereafter back at the house,
and that is where Boxing Day was spent in December 1991.

There will also be some ballistics evidence, it is anticipated, from Mr John Barber and his
opinion almost entirely — if not certainly by and large — coincides with that of Mr Dutton.
He disagrees with Mr Prior — as did Mr Dutton — that one can identify that cartridge case at
[Eagle Vale] as coming from the Ruger 10/22 bolt. He disagrees with that identification, but
he otherwise confirms what Mr Dutton says.

The defence also anticipates calling Chalinder Hughes, who will tell you about the Benetton
top and what she recalls of the morning of the raid.

The Supreme Court trial had commenced in the old Banco Court in St James’
Road on 25 March 1996 and after carefully adducing a vast amount of
evidence the prosecution closed its case nearly three months later on 17 June
1996. That day, the defence commenced its case by calling Ivan Milat, whose
evidence-in-chief came out much as Milat’s defence counsel, Terry Martin,
indicated that it would, and such was the state of things when Mark Tedeschi
QC commenced his cross-examination of Ivan Milat shortly after the
morning tea adjournment on Tuesday 18 June 1996.

1 There was evidence at the trial that the hairs were compared microscopically with known
hairs of Ms Walters, by a scientist who was of the opinion that two of the hairs appeared
to be within the range of Walter’s own hair, three were too deteriorated to determine their
origin, and six did not appear to be within her hair range. Although the scientist thought it
very unlikely those six were Joanne Walters’ hairs, he conceded that it was possible that
they were. Subsequent DNA testing (generally far more reliable than microscopic
examination) was also done on the hairs, but this was initially incompetently done and the
results could not be relied upon. Further DNA testing competently done revealed a partial
profile that provided support (albeit weak support due to the partial nature of the DNA
profile) for the proposition that all of the hairs were consistent with being Walters’ own
 hair, and also established that the hairs did not come from any member of the Milat family.
2 An example of a firing pin impression on a cartridge case can be seen in Photo 13. When
a cartridge case in question is examined under a comparison microscope for tool marks,
together with a cartridge case known to have been fired by the firing pin of a particular
firearm, ballistics experts can establish whether or not the same firing pin has struck both
cartridges.
3 See Photo 42.
4 See Photo 30 — a police photo of what a Colt .45 revolver looks like if loaded with
copper-tipped bullets and pointed at the viewer.
5 See Photo 43, showing a pillowslip containing sash cord ropes found on a shelf in Milat’s
garage during a subsequent police search.
6 See Photo 73.
7 Please note that the suburb Hill Top is spelt as one word throughout the official court
transcript.
8 See Diagram 1 for a floor plan of the house, prepared by police.
9 See Photos 3, 4 and 5.
10 A head stamp is a letter or similar symbol impressed by the manufacturer into the bottom of
a bullet’s cartridge case, to identify the manufacturer and differentiate the place and/or
time of manufacture.
11 See Photo 76. The evidence from the pathologist called by the prosecution was to the effect
that this knife was not consistent with having caused the stab wounds to Joanne Walters;
nor was it used on Caroline Clarke. However, in relation to the other victims, it could not
be included or excluded as a possible weapon, since their remains were too weathered
and perished to be able to establish this one way or another.
12 The barrel band is a metal band that holds the barrel to the stock of a rifle. See the
diagram of a Ruger 10/22 rifle at Diagram 2 and Photo 10.
13 See Photos 31 and 32.
14 See Photo 17.
15 See Photo 56.
16 See Photo 57.
17 See Photo 54.
18 See Photo 55.
19 See Photo 60.
20 See Photo 45.
21 See Photo 7.
22 The receiver is that part of a firearm that houses the working parts: see Photo 2 and
Diagram 2.
23 See Photo 18.
24 See Photo 59.
25 See Photos 74 and 75.
26 See Photo 14.
27 See Photo 29.
28 See Photos 35 and 36.
29 See Photo 27.
30 See Photo 37.
31 See Diagram 3 and Photo 22.
32 See Photo 34.
33 See Photos 25 and 26.
34 See Photo 21.
35 See Photo 11.
36 See Photo 22.
37 See Photo 62.
38 See Photo 63.
39 See Photo 9.
40 See Photo 15.
41 See Photo 6.
42 See Photo 65.
43 See Photo 67.
44 See Photo 66.
45 See Photo 68.
46 See Photo 77.
47 See Photo 71.
48 See Photos 69 and 70.
49 See Photo 24.
50 R v Ivan Robert Marko Milat, NSWCCA, CCA 60438/96, 26 February 1998 per
Gleeson CJ, Meagher JA and Newman J.
51 See Photo 72.
[page 35]
 CHAPTER 2
DAY ONE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
18 JUNE 1996

OVERVIEW
Day one of cross-examination by Mark Tedeschi QC demonstrates how to set
the tone of a cross-examination and establish authority as a cross-examiner.
Over the course of this day, Tedeschi used a number of cross-examination
techniques to great effect; namely:
closing the gates;
linking back; echoing; probing;
itemisation;
insinuation;
repetition and persistence;
‘string of beads’ questions;
using the phrase ‘please explain to the jury’;
undermining by extrapolation and appropriate use of sarcasm;
undermining by pointing out absurdities; and
climactic questions.
Other techniques that allowed Tedeschi to build on and maintain the pace
of cross-examination include:
approaching the witness;
 confronting the witness with an exhibit; asking the witness to read
aloud from an exhibit;
dealing with a vague answer; not settling for a ‘hedged’ answer; and
making use of undisputed items; getting the witness to admit
unavoidable patent truths.
The rule in Browne v Dunne is also discussed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Mr Milat, on Saturday 21 May 1994, the

day prior to your arrest, at about 3.15am were you loading the road
profiler that you worked on, on to a transport vehicle of CAD?1
A. I could have been, yes.

[page 36]

Setting the tone and establishing the authority of the cross-

examiner
2.1 The opening sequence of questions at the commencement of a cross-
examination provides an opportunity not to be squandered and will
often set the tone for the cross-examination. It is often very
important for the cross-examiner to establish his or her authority
and control over the witness from the outset. Here, Tedeschi was
aware that Milat had been under police surveillance for some time,
particularly the day before his arrest. Tedeschi made very effective
use of this information by asking Milat a series of questions that
made it clear that his exact movements, to the minute, were known
with precision by the cross-examiner. The witness was asked a series
 of questions, about which there could be no argument, and to which
he had no option but to answer ‘yes’. This kind of approach is likely
to leave the witness wondering: ‘What else might the cross-examiner
know in such detail about me?’. There are many other approaches to
opening a cross-examination, but this was a very effective one in the
circumstances of this case.

Q. And did you travel in a convoy with the road profiler to the
roadworks on the F5 at the intersection of Campbelltown Road and
the Sydney Western Freeway at Glenfield?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that where you were working at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you park at that intersection and later did you operate the
road profiler?
A. That’s right.

Q. What sort of machine is a road profiler?

A. It digs up the road, excavates the road. You can set it for various
depths, just profiles the road, can either go down a couple of
millimetres or can go down 300 millimetres deep.

Q. What was your function with the road profiler?

A. I was ganger operator.

Q. So did you actually operate the machine?

A. Yes, it was a two-man job them machines are.
Q. You worked on that day with a man by the name of Mr Hans
Jensen?
A. That’s right.

Q. J-e-n-s-e-n?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you take turns with operating the machine?

A. Most of the time he drove it, if that’s what you mean, he drove it.

[page 37]

Q. Yes. So what was your role, when he drove it what was your role?
A. I used to monitor the depths.

Q. So would that require you walking on the road in close vicinity to

where the road was to be dug?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that a messy sort of job, a dusty sort of job?

A. Yeah, anywhere where you are, if you are around the machine, it’s
dusty.

Q. Around 12.10 on the afternoon of Saturday 21 May did you

cease work and drive the road profiler on a transporter to the
intersection of Campbelltown Road and the freeway?
A. Put it on the transporter?

Q. Yes.
A. At 12.10?

Q. By 12.10 had you driven to the intersection of Campbelltown Road

and the freeway?
A. Yes.

Q. What sort of vehicle was it that had the road profiler on it?
A. 12.10?

Q. No. What sort of vehicle was it that carried the road profiler?
A. A low-loader, a float we call them.

Q. A float?
A. Yes.

Q. Did that have the registration SOC-249. Do you remember that?

A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. Did you leave that area of the F5 freeway and travel to the CSR
Depot at Rosehill?
A. Yes, but you are talking about that vehicle with the float number,
you are talking about?

Q. Yes.
A. That was not the float number, that’s our service truck.

Q. So you were in the service truck, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Did the service truck and the road profiler leave on that day
 together?
A. No.

[page 38]

Q. Did you go to the CSR depot at Rosehill arriving about 12.50 in

the afternoon?
A. Yes.

Q. At about 1.27 did you drive the service vehicle away from the CSR
depot at Rosehill?
A. Yes.

Q. And where did you go?

A. Back to the job.

Q. Did you stop off somewhere shortly after 1.27pm on the afternoon
of Saturday 21 May?
A. I could have, yes.

Linking by establishing the witness’s habits (and opportunity)

through the witness
2.2 The police surveillance established that Milat had, the day before his
arrest, gone to the very shop (Lombardo’s) where Paul Onions, the
English backpacker who made a fortunate escape from Milat, had
accepted a lift from him in January 1990. Linking the accused as a
frequenter of the scene where one of the hitchhikers said he had
been offered a ride by the offender as a prelude to the subsequent
detaining of Onions was an important piece of circumstantial
 evidence. Asked, as it was, in the midst of other irrefutable questions
to which Milat had to answer ‘yes’, Tedeschi’s question was given
added impact by framing the question in the way he did: ‘Where do
you think you might have stopped off at?’, and having the witness
himself make the significant reply: ‘I think I stopped at Lombardo’s
shop’. This is far more effective than simply asking: ‘You then
stopped at Lombardo’s didn’t you?’. It is often more effective to
permit the witness to deliver the critical information in response to a
non-leading question, even when cross-examining. This is very fine
advocacy.

Q. Where do you think you might have stopped off at?

A. I think I stopped at the Lombardo shop.

Q. This is one of those occasional weekend visits to Lombardo’s, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. You stopped off at Lombardo’s at about 1.27 or thereabouts on the

afternoon prior to your arrest?
A. That’s what I’ve been told.

Q. Well that is what you believed, isn’t it?

A. Could be, yes.

[page 39]

Not settling for a ‘hedged’ answer

2.3 By this question, Tedeschi re-directs the witness back to the question
 that has been asked and ensures that it is answered — it is important
not to permit a witness to avoid disclosing what they know to be the
case, by a ‘hedging’ answer such as was given here (‘That’s what I’ve
been told’). It is also important to recognise this kind of response,
which can appear in a multitude of forms.

Q. You accept that, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. At about 2 o’clock did you leave Lombardo’s and go to [XX

XXXXXXXXXXX] Crescent, Kearns, arriving there about 2.16?
A. Something like that.

Q. You were looking for Chalinder Hughes, is that right?

A. That’s right.

Q. You call her ‘Cylinder’, do you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a joke or — why do you call her Cylinder?

A. That’s how I believed her name when I first met her, that’s how I
called her, she never pulled me up.

Q. Her name is actually Chalinder?

A. That’s right.

Q. Do you have difficulty pronouncing it, do you?

A. No.
Q. You still call her ‘Cylinder’?
A. That’s right.

Q. Was she at home when you got there at about 2 o’clock?

A. No.

Q. So you left th ere and went back to your home at Eagle Vale, is
that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. About 2.30 or thereabouts you went back to [XX XXXXXXXXXXX]

Crescent, Kearns, where she lived, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. By this time she was home and she got into your vehicle, which
was the service vehicle?
A. That’s right.

[page 40]

Q. And you then went back to the roadworks situated at

Campbelltown Road and the F5 Freeway, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. At about 4.30 a low-loader arrived and you arranged for the

profiler to be put on the loader?
A. That’s right.

Q. About 4.43 you followed the profiler on the low-loader to Pymble?

A. Right.

Q. At about 6.30 you finished up at Pymble?

A. That’s right.

Q. On the way home you stop off at Kentucky Fried Chicken at

Liverpool?
A. Correct.

Q. You had Chalinder in the vehicle as well?

A. Yes.

Q. This was still the service vehicle of Readymix?

A. That’s right.

Q. And you arrived home about 7.38?

A. Yes.

Q. And you stayed at home after that?

A. Correct.

The closing of an important gate

2.4 It was important to establish the point in time from which Milat
remained at home that day. Tedeschi made an ‘educated guess’ that
Milat would have been wearing his work boots at work the day prior
to his arrest. When police raided Milat’s home and arrested him,
they found a pair of his boots in the hall closet, and inside one of the
boots was found the receiver from a .22 calibre Ruger rifle, which
ballistics evidence established was the type of weapon used at two of
 the murder scenes in the Belanglo State Forest (Clarke/Walters and
Neugebauer/Habschied). If Milat had worn these boots the day
before his arrest, then no-one else could have ‘planted’ the gun part
in the boot other than a person who was in the dwelling overnight.
The house had been under continuous surveillance and no-one else
was there apart from Milat and his girlfriend, Chalinder Hughes.2
Milat maintained that these were not his work boots, but were for
social outings

[page 41]

on his motorcycle. Whichever they were, the point made is valid —

the location of the Ruger receiver inside the boot was highly
consistent with a rushed attempt to hide this incriminating evidence,
and the point is well made by Tedeschi’s questions here.

Q. Had you been wearing the same clothes during all this time?
A. Yes.

Q. And these were your working clothes?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have your Wirtgen3 hat on, do you remember, the
Wirtgen cap?
A. While I was working?

Q. Yes.
A. I imagine I would have.
Q. That was something you regularly wore?
A. Yes.

Q. I think in fact we have in evidence the kind of clothes that you

regularly wore at work, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. That morning you had gone to your work on your Harley

Davidson, is that right?
A. No.

QUESTION WITHDRAWN.

Q. The previous day when you had gone to work you had driven to
work on your Harley Davidson?
A. That’s right.

Q. And you had your boots on?

A. Yes.

Q. Which boots were they?

A. Would be work boots.

Q. Were they work issue boots by Readymix?

A. Yes.

Q. How many pairs of work boots did you have?

A. In my house?
 [page 42]

Q. Yes.
A. I believe I had four, five pair.

Q. Four or five. There was one pair that was new?

A. I had a couple of pair that’s new.

Q. A couple of pairs?
A. Yes.

Q. Whereabouts were they?

A. There was some kept in the spare room, a pair that I used in the
hallway cupboard.

Q. How many new pairs were kept in the spare room?

A. I couldn’t tell you exactly how many, but there would have been at
least two, I imagine.

Q. Yes, go on, whereabouts were your other pairs?

A. The pair that I used, me going out boots you’re talking about?

Q. Yes.
A. In the hallway cupboard.

Q. In the hallway cupboard?

A. Yes.

Q. Whereabouts did you keep the boots that you wore on that day, in
 the hallway cupboard?
A. No.

Q. Your work boots were kept in the hallway cupboard?

A. No.

Q. Which boots did you keep in the hallway cupboard?

A. The boots I wore when I went out.

Q. When you say when you went out, you mean going out to work?
A. No.

Q. Going out with Chalinder?

A. That’s right.

Q. On your motor bike?

A. That’s right.

[page 43]

Q. So those work issue boots that were kept in the hall cupboard, they
were used by you to ride your motor bike?
A. Socially, yes.4

Q. To go to work you used your motor bike the previous day?

A. Yes.

Q. And whereabouts did you keep the boots that you wore to work
that day?
A. In the garage.

Q. In the garage?
A. Yes.

Q. Whereabouts in the garage?

A. Just in the garage.

Q. Whereabouts?
A. On the floor of the garage.

Q. Whereabouts on the floor in the garage?

A. Right near the doorway.

Q. Which doorway?
A. The entry into the house.

Q. Where were those boots when the police searched your home?
A. They would have been there.5

Q. In the garage?
A. Yes.

Q. When you say they were near the door, do you mean the door
that goes from the hallway into the garage?6
A. Yes.

Q. (Witness shown exhibit EF.) I show you a plan of [XXXXXXXX]

Street [Eagle Vale].
Q. You see the garage area?
A. Yes.

[page 44]

Q. Would you mark with a green pen with a cross where it was that
you say these boots were?
A. Well, I had my boot polish there and that’s where the boots were
usually kept. I didn’t walk in the house with my work boots on.

Q. See, you have got them next to the cupboard in the garage, just
next to the door, is that right?
A. That’s where they would be.

HIS HONOUR: You mean the door going into the house?

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Yes, he has marked it right next to that door.

(Above document marked by witness shown to the jury.)

Q. Now Mr Milat, correct me if I am wrong, but is this your present

position. You are not suggesting that the police have planted any
of those items like gun parts on you, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

Closing the gates

2.5 It was important for Tedeschi to confirm that the defence was not
alleging that the police had planted any of the gun parts found or
any of the victims’ property found in Milat’s house. During the
presentation of the prosecution’s case, the defence had not put to
any Crown witness that items had been planted by police and it was
 never part of the defence case that the police had done so, but it was
vital that Milat confirm this before asking the questions that follow.
This is a good example of the importance of ‘closing the gates’ to any
possible avenue of retreat by the witness. It is essential to ensure that
the gates are indeed truly closed, for if there is the least opening a
witness looking for a way out will almost always find it. The witness
now has no option but to go where the cross-examiner expects him
to, and he commits himself to the explanation that someone other
than the police has come into his home (which had a burglar alarm
system) without his knowledge, and planted a Ruger gun part in a
place (his boot) where Milat would be likely to find it. This
explanation sounds absurd — and this is not an unusual result when
the gates have been properly closed. Tedeschi expands upon this
basic proposition by extracting a similar explanation for numerous
other pieces of incriminating evidence found in Milat’s house. The
cumulative effect is devastating to the witness’s credibility.

Q. And you are not suggesting that any of the camping equipment
from the backpackers has been planted by the police, is that
correct?
A. I’m not suggesting that, no.

Q. So what I say is correct — you are not suggesting that, are you?
A. No.

[page 45]

Q. In fact, you are not suggesting that the police have planted any
items at all either in your home or the home of your mother or your
brothers, is that the case?
A. I wouldn’t know what they’ve done.

Dealing with a vague answer

2.6 This vague, straying response by the witness requires the cross-
examiner to demand a clear answer — which Tedeschi does in his
next question. It is important to recognise this kind of response as
and when it happens, so that it can be dealt with at once. The
witness’s initial answer seems to be an attempt to have things ‘both
ways’, which the cross-examiner cannot permit where the issue is
one fundamental to the case.

Q. Well, is that the case, you are not suggesting that any of the items
of camping equipment from the backpackers has been planted at
any of the other homes, is that correct?
A. No, I’m not suggesting that.

Q. So is this what you are suggesting, that someone has come into
your home and planted the Ruger receiver in your boot in the hall
cupboard, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Someone has come to your home and planted that item, an item of
great relevance in this case, you agree?
A. Yes.

Q. An item that has been linked to the deaths of two of the

backpackers, right?
A. Right.
Linking back
2.7 This question is an excellent example of ‘linking back’ an affirmative
answer given by an accused, to the critical elements of the Crown’s
case (the murder of the backpackers). The evidence had, by this
point in the trial, established that the Ruger receiver7 had been
painted with camouflage paint that was similar, in chemical
composition, to camouflage paint on the Ruger trigger mechanism
that had been found together with a Ruger bolt assembly, hidden in
the wall cavity of Milat’s house — see Photos 3, 4 and 5. The
ballistics evidence established that the bolt had been used in the rifle
that fired the 10 cartridge cases found near Carolyn Clarke’s body
and had also fired cartridges that had been found in Area A at the
Neugebauer/Habschied crime scene in the Belanglo Forest.

[page 46]

Q. Someone has come into your home and planted the receiver in a
boot in the hall cupboard, a place where you would be likely to
see it, that’s right, isn’t it?
A. That’s right.

Building
2.8 The long series of questions that follow in this next passage
demonstrates ‘building’ upon the answers the cross-examiner is
getting from the witness by asking simple questions taking the
answers given to their logical conclusion, by which the advocate
exposes the weakness of the explanation being given by the witness.
Tedeschi’s simple questions are ones that, given the position Milat
 has taken, he must answer in the affirmative. The weakness of the
position is laid bare by the witness’s own answers to these simple
questions. This is very effective advocacy.

Q. Now that hall cupboard contained things that you regularly use,
didn’t it?
A. Yes.

Q. Now when Chalinder Hughes travelled on your motor bike, did

she use a helmet?
A. Yes.

Q. And where was that helmet kept?

A. Usually in the hallway cupboard.

Q. Were there other items in the hallway cupboard that you regularly
used?
A. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. Well, we’ll come to that. You say that somebody has gone to the
trouble of breaking into your home, is that right?
A. No.

Quick thinking
2.9 The cross-examiner here anticipates and picks up the distinction the
witness is making between ‘breaking’ into the home and coming into
the home. By this stage it has become apparent that Milat is
endeavoring to suggest that the items were planted by someone who
had access to his home, who did not need to ‘break’ in — suggestive
 perhaps of a family member or a friend. Although Milat never
suggests that this may have been another member of his family, the
possibility becomes a major plank in the defence case to argue that
there was a ‘reasonable doubt’ in the prosecution’s case — see the
remarks of Milat’s counsel, Terry Martin, in his opening address to
the jury, referred to in the chapter on the background to the case at
1.12.

Q. Or getting into your home, is that right?

A. Yes.

[page 47]

Q. Well, did you give anybody permission to come into your home
and put things in your home?
A. No.

Q. So you say that somebody has come into your home without
breaking in, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Without your permission?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Because you had a burglar alarm in your home?

A. Yes.
Q. Was there ever an occasion when your burglar alarm was set off
when you were away from there?
A. Pardon?

Q. Did your burglar alarm ever get set off when you were not at
home? Do you know of any person who set it off?
A. I’m not aware of that.

Q. So someone has come into your home, who knows you say — who
knows your burglar alarm code, is that what you’re suggesting?
A. Yes.

Q. So you are suggesting that someone has come into your home and
placed an object like this receiver in a very obvious place like your
boot, right — is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. In an object like your boot, which you use perhaps every week, at
the weekend?
A. Yes.

Q. In a place where you are going to see it immediately, if you open

the cupboard, is that right?
A. It turns out you don’t see it immediately.

Q. But is that right, that somebody has placed it in a position where

you would see it immediately if you opened the cupboard?
A. I walked around --

Q. Just answer my question. You say somebody has placed it in your

 boot, in a hallway cupboard where, if you open up the hallway
cupboard, you would see it immediately?
A. I’m not saying that.

[page 48]

Maintaining control
2.10 The cross-examiner could tell from the three words ‘I walked around
…’, beginning the witness’s answer, that he was not answering the
question directly. He immediately brings the witness back to the
question. Straying answers of this kind to an unambiguous question
give the cross-examiner important clues that the witness is not keen
to go into the topic being canvassed, and they flag areas that the
cross-examiner might probe to good effect. Tedeschi does just that
here.

Q. All right. Well, had you used the boot you would certainly see it
immediately, wouldn’t you?
A. Oh yes.

Q. So somebody has deposited it in a really obvious place, haven’t

they?
A. Sounds like it.

Q. You’d use your boot?

A. Yes.

Q. Someone, you say, has also deposited the other Ruger parts in the
 wall cavity, that’s what you say, isn’t it?
A. They must have.

Undermining
2.11 In the wall cavity of Milat’s house, accessible via the manhole into
the roof space from the garage, police had found the bolt of the
Ruger .22 rifle that ballistics evidence established had been used to
murder Caroline Clarke and also fired the Winchester cartridge
cases found in Area A at the Neugebauer/Habschied scene. Also
found with it was the trigger mechanism and a ‘Ramline’ magazine
capable of holding 50 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition and suitable
for a Ruger rifle.8 This was very suggestive of a careful hiding rather
than a ‘planting’ of evidence. But, having committed himself to his
explanation that these must have been planted by a person or
persons unknown, Milat must stick to the ‘planting’ theory. This
becomes very difficult for him to maintain and Tedeschi’s persistent
cross-examination following is withering in undermining and
exposing the glaring weaknesses inherent in Milat’s explanation.
Much of cross-examination is about undermining the position being
maintained by the witness, and there are many examples where
Tedeschi’s line of questioning is directed to this end.

Q. Now would you agree with me, that’s a place that would be very,
very hard for anyone to find?
A. I’m under the impression the police found it within ten minutes.

[page 49]
Don’t be put off by a ‘smart’ or ‘clever’ answer
2.12 This answer by the witness looks like an attempt to suggest that it
was easy for anyone to find the items hidden in the roof space, and
thus it could hardly be said that they were hidden. An inexperienced
cross-examiner might well feel temporarily stumped by such an
answer and move on to another point. But here the experienced
cross-examiner presses right on and repeats the question, effectively
dismissing the witness’s previous answer for what it is — irrelevant
to the point that there had obviously been a serious attempt to hide
the items.

Q. Do you agree that that is somewhere that would be very, very hard
for someone to find?
A. No.

Q. Have you ever looked down your wall cavity?

A. Never have.

Q. Do other people who come to your home normally look down your
wall cavity?
A. I don’t know.

Sarcasm
2.13 A touch of appropriate sarcasm here, and in the following questions,
emphasises the incredibility of Milat’s responses here, and makes the
point that the wall cavity is not readily accessible and that the
locating of the gun parts there was far more likely to have been the
result of an attempt to hide them, rather than ‘plant’ them.
Q. Has anybody ever come into your home and looked down your
wall cavity?
A. I don’t know.

Q. You don’t know?

A. No.

Q. But you’re not 100 per cent sure?

A. I don’t know.

Multi-layered advocacy — here is a question which, by

echoing other evidence in the case, also makes a subliminal
submission to the jury
2.14 The phrase ‘I’m not 100 per cent sure’ was given as an answer to a
number of questions asked of Richard Milat, Ivan’s brother, who was
called to give evidence by the Crown earlier in the trial, and whom
the prosecutor was given leave to cross-examine on certain matters.
Such an answer may lack candor — even if the witness is 99.99 per
cent sure, such an answer permits a witness simply to be avoidant of
providing any help to the court on the subject matter of the
question,

[page 50]

and the cross-examiner must not accept this kind of hedging. If the
witness persists, it may damage their credibility significantly. By
alluding to Richard Milat’s evidence in this question to Ivan Milat,
Tedeschi in effect invites the jury to recall Richard’s testimony.
Q. Well, do your guests normally come into your home and look
down your wall cavity?9
A. My guests, no.

Q. Well, does your sister Shirley look down your wall cavity?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Do you think she does?

A. I don’t know.

Q. No idea?
A. No idea.

Q. No idea whether Shirley gets up there from time to time and says,
‘I think I’ll have a good time today. I think I’ll look down the wall
cavity’. No idea whether she does that?
A. I wouldn’t have any idea what she does.

Q. But she might do it for entertainment?

A. Pardon?

Q. She might do it for entertainment — look down the wall cavity?

A. I wouldn’t have a clue what she does.

Q. See, I suggest to you that somebody has gone to a lot of trouble to

try and hide those Ruger parts in the wall cavity, what do you say
to that?
A. Well, yes, somebody has put them there.

Q. Somebody has gone to a lot of trouble to hide those Ruger parts in

 that wall cavity, haven’t they?
A. I don’t know whether it’s a lot of trouble or not.

Breaking a question into its component parts

2.15 What follows now is a good example of the cross-examiner dealing
with a vague response, just given, to a clear question that has a self-
evident answer that the witness is not giving, by breaking the
question into its component parts. Tedeschi does not simply accept
this answer — he restates it immediately by breaking it into its
component parts in the series of questions that follow, and
establishes the answer, that was always self-evident, to the point that
the witness must agree.

[page 51]

Q. Well, somebody has climbed up into the roof space above the
garage, right?
A. Yes.

Q. Somebody has come into your home, you say, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Somebody has switched off the alarm, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Somebody has gone up into the roof space and dropped those
items down into the wall cavity — that’s what you say, isn’t it?
A. That seems to be the only way it could be done.
Q. Now you yourself went to a lot of trouble to hide a firearm in your
back garden, didn’t you?
A. Well, it wasn’t a lot of trouble.

Reminding the witness (and the jury) of previous similar

behaviour by the witness on another occasion that is in
evidence, and timing
2.16 In his evidence-in-chief, Milat had confirmed that he had owned a
Colt .45 pistol that he had kept buried in a container in his yard. He
said that he had asked his sister Shirley to dispose of it for him. The
police had not located this pistol in their search. The question
effectively reminds the jury that Milat is a person who may ‘hide’
firearms, the inference clearly being that the jury might consider that
he also hid the Ruger parts in the wall cavity. The interposing of this
information in such an effective place within the line of questioning
is a good example of the importance of the cross-examiner
introducing material at the most effective point. The timing here is
important and effectively done.

Q. Well, you went to some trouble to make sure that you hid it well,
didn’t you?
A. Yes, so it was out of the way.

Q. You hid it in a place where you thought the police wouldn’t find it?
A. I was never worried about the police finding it.

Q. You were never worried about the police finding it?

A. That’s right.
Q. Did you hide it there thinking that the police would never find it?
A. No.

[page 52]

Forcing a ‘turnaround’ in the position taken by the witness by

probing and confronting this position with other established
evidence
2.17 Here Milat asserts that the reason he hid the Colt .45 pistol in the
back yard was for security, and not to hide it from the police.
Tedeschi then reminds Milat of the fact that there were other illegal
guns in the house that were not hidden, and that presumably these
posed a similar ‘security’ risk, yet Milat had not hidden these in the
same way. Having had this inconsistency made apparent by the
cross-examiner, when asked again why he had hidden the Colt pistol
Milat admits that it was hidden because it was an illegal gun. This
turnaround in the space of a few brief questions is very effective and
telling. By this stage in the cross-examination, Milat finally indicates
that he would go to considerable lengths to hide an illegal firearm.

Q. Why did you hide it in the back yard?

A. It was the only secure place in the whole place.

Q. Did you hide it there because you thought that would be a place
that the police wouldn’t find it?
A. No.

Q. Did you hide it there for the specific purpose of preventing the
police finding it?
A. No.

Q. When did you hide it there?

A. Virtually when I first come in there.

Q. When you first came into the house?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. End of — or middle of — around July, yes, something like that I
moved in.

Q. 1992?
A. 93.

Q. I’m sorry, 93?

A. Yes.

Q. See, you had a lot of guns in that house, didn’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. When you moved in?

A. Yes.

Q. SKK Rifles?
A. Yes.

[page 53]
Q. A whole lot of illegal guns?
A. Yes.

Q. Right?
A. Yes.

Q. Hand guns?
A. Black powder pistol, yes.

Q. Yes, well, some of them were illegal?

A. Some were.

Q. And yet you say you chose to hide only the Colt 45 pistol in the
back yard?
A. That’s right.

Q. Why did you only hide the Colt 45 pistol in the back garden?
A. That’s because it’s a pistol.

Q. Well, you had a black powder revolver, didn’t you?10

A. Yes.

Q. You had the Browning, didn’t you?

A. Never had the Browning.

Q. We’ll come back to that, Mr Milat. You had a 38 pistol?

A. No.

Q. You certainly had the black powder revolver. You agree with that?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you hide only the Colt 45 pistol in the back garden?
A. I regarded that one as the only really illegal gun that I had.

Q. The only really illegal gun. Mr Milat, didn’t you move a whole lot
of guns to your brother Walter’s place because they were illegal?11
A. Not so much because they were illegal.

Q. Well, why?
A. Safekeeping.

[page 54]

Q. Didn’t you tell this court that the main reason that you moved your
guns to Walter’s place was that you had found out that the police
were making enquiries about your guns?
A. Yes.

The importance of paying attention to the answers

2.18 This is a good demonstration of the importance of the cross-
examiner closely following the evidence so as to be able to recall it
whenever required — here Tedeschi is able to remind the witness of
his previous evidence, in order to hold him to it. It is very important
for the cross-examiner to pay attention and follow everything the
witness is saying, and to recall it if required.

Q. And you had some illegal guns there?

A. Yes.

Q. Wasn’t that your main reason? Didn’t you tell this court that was
your main reason?
A. That was one of the reasons.

Q. That was one of your reasons — that you had some illegal guns?
A. Yes.

Q. So were you concerned about the police finding those illegal guns?
A. Yes I was.

Q. So I ask you again. Why did you hide the Colt 45 pistol in your
back garden — by burying it in your back garden and not worry
about the other guns, the illegal guns that you had in the house?
A. Anyone could find them up in the roof.

Q. Yes, I ask you again. Why did you hide the Colt 45 pistol by
burying it in your back yard while you had other illegal weapons
in your ceiling?
A. Because the guns up in the ceiling — if anyone come into the
house and they got into the ceiling, they’d see the guns there.

Knowing when to move on

2.19 By this stage the cross-examiner had already made ample headway
in relation to the Colt .45 buried in the back yard. This return to the
issue at this point was probably unnecessary. It is important to know
when to ‘move on’ lest the witness is given further opportunity to re-
cast their answers. Milat’s answer here is a non-sequitur that adds
nothing, and Tedeschi appropriately now moves to another issue.
Q. That’s right. You weren’t concerned about them?
A. Not really.

[page 55]

Q. The SKK, is that a sub-machine gun?

A. No

Q. It’s a semi-automatic?
A. Semi-automatic.

Q. You agree that you had a Ruger butt plate?

A. Yes.

Establishing the witness’s possession of incriminating

evidence — Ruger 10/22 component parts
2.20 A butt plate suitable for a Ruger 10/22 rifle was found among the
shelving in Milat’s garage.12 Obviously Tedeschi wanted to show
that Milat had a connection with Ruger guns of any kind,
particularly a 10/22 rifle. Given that the bolt that had been a
component of the rifle that was used to shoot Caroline Clarke, and
also to fire the Winchester .22 calibre cartridge cases located in Area
A at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder site, was found hidden in
Milat’s wall cavity, and that it was apparent that that rifle had been at
least partly disassembled, finding other component parts of a Ruger
10/22 in Milat’s possession added strength to the proposition that he
had possessed the entire rifle, and the butt plate may well have been
 another part from the Ruger used at the Clarke/Walters and
Neugebauer/Habschied crime scenes.

Q. That was in your garage, was it?

A. That’s right.

Q. It was on a shelf in the garage?

A. That’s what they tell me.

Q. Well, you don’t dispute that, do you?

A. I thought it would have been in my bag with the other parts.

Q. You of course — you had a Ruger?

A. Mini 14.

Q. That had a butt plate on it?

A. Yes.

Q. You had another Ruger, the unused Ruger, as it has been called, or
the new Ruger?
A. The 22?

[page 56]

Establishing the witness’s familiarity with a key component of

the crime
2.21 The Crown case was that a Ruger 10/22 rifle had been used to shoot
Caroline Clarke and also at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder
 scene. A new or unused Ruger 10/22 rifle, not the murder weapon,
and still in its original box, was found among Milat’s property in the
alcove at Walter’s house at Hilltop.13 The Crown case was that this
was the same kind of gun as the murder weapon used at the
Clarke/Walters and the Neugebauer/Habschied scenes and that this
new Ruger belonged to Ivan Milat. He maintained that it was not his
despite cogent evidence to the contrary including the fact that the
owner’s manual for this gun was located among his papers at
home14 and had written on its cover in Milat’s handwriting the date
on which it had been purchased from the Horsley Park Gun Shop by
someone using a licence belonging to a man named Pittaway, who
was a friend of Milat. Pittaway was in New Zealand when the gun
was purchased, so someone else had used his licence to purchase the
gun.

Q. Yes.
A. No, I never had that.

Q. That was found in your property in the alcove. You had it at some
stage, didn’t you?
A. I never had it at all.

Q. Never had it at all. What use did you have for a butt plate for a
Ruger?
A. Somebody has given it to me.

Q. If somebody had given it to you, you would have had to receive it,
right? Firstly, who was it that gave it to you?
A. I couldn’t say.
Q. That’s very convenient, isn’t it, you can’t remember who gave it to
you.

OBJECTION TO COMMENT.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Crown, I reject the comment.

Comments during questioning

2.22 A comment is not a question and comments should be kept for the
address. Even the most experienced advocate can erroneously make
a comment, and the cross-examiner, of course, must adhere to any
intervention by the trial judge. Tedeschi is able here to appropriately
convert the comment into a question, which is unobjectionable.

[page 57]

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. It’s very easy for you to allege that you don’t
remember the person who gave it to you, isn’t it?
A. I’ve got a lot of gun parts I wouldn’t know who give them to me.

Q. Do you remember anything about the person who gave you the
Ruger butt plate that was found in your garage?
A. No.

Probing
2.23 Tedeschi is very effectively probing Milat for more information
about the origin of the Ruger butt plate. None is forthcoming; Milat
cannot say whether he obtained it from a man or a woman —
apparently he does not want to say. Tedeschi’s questions are
 designed to highlight this fact; for example, ‘Was it a male or a
female?’ is such a simple matter to recall if the butt plate had been
given to Milat by someone else. The Crown case was that the butt
plate was probably once a component of the dismantled Ruger that
had been used at the Clarke/Walters and the Neugebauer/Habschied
scenes. Indeed, police found in Milat’s house every metal component
part of a Ruger .22 rifle apart from the barrel and a spring; a wooden
stock was never found.15

Q. Do you remember anything about him at all?

A. No.

Q. Was it a male or a female?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Was it someone at work or somewhere else?

A. Could have been.

Q. Do you remember when it was that you got the Ruger butt plate?
A. The only reason — because I’ve seen the butt plate there so I
assume somebody give it to me.

Q. What about the barrel band, the broken barrel band?

A. I wouldn’t have no idea why I’d keep a broken barrel band.

Q. That was found in the Sarnia box in your bedroom, together with a
lot of other items?
A. That’s what I’ve been told.

Q. You don’t dispute that’s where it was found do you?

A. I could.

[page 58]

Promptly reining in the witness to maintain momentum on an

important issue
2.24 Milat here seems intent on disputing the damaging evidence of gun
parts, and briefly appears to be about to do so. However, Tedeschi
immediately deals with this by reminding the witness that the
suggestion that someone would plant a broken barrel band in among
a number of items in a box in a room in his house is most
improbable.16 It can be very important at a moment like this for the
cross-examiner to promptly rein the witness in, so that the line that
the cross-examiner is developing is not interrupted. If a witness is
permitted to stray, impact can be lost. After the careful buildup and
effort that Tedeschi had gone through to reach this point, he could
not permit the momentum to be broken or for the witness to take
the initiative.

Q. I’m sorry?
A. I could.

Q. You don’t suggest that it has been planted there by anyone, do

you?
A. I’m not suggesting nothing.

Q. Are you suggesting that someone has come into your home and
planted a broken Ruger barrel band in the fourth bedroom of your
home?
A. No, I’m not suggesting that.

Q. So how did it get into the fourth bedroom? How did it get into the
Sarnia bag?
A. If I had it I’d imagine it would have been in one of the drawers of
the dresser. That’s where I kept the gun parts.

Q. It was found in the Sarnia box in bedroom 4. You don’t dispute

that, do you?
A. I have no idea where it was found.

Q. Well, the Sarnia box is shown in the photograph in folder 7 tab C

photo 2 as being underneath the dresser in bedroom 4. See that?
(Approached. Photograph shown to witness.) See the box under
the dresser there in bedroom 4?17
A. Yes.

Q. Is that your box?

A. Yes.

Q. And the stuff in that box is yours, isn’t it — the stuff in the Sarnia
box was yours, wasn’t it?
A. I’d say, yes.

[page 59]

Building on opportunities that arise

2.25 Having extracted the admission that the ‘Sarnia’ box and its contents
were Milat’s, the cross-examiner immediately asks the question as to
 how the broken Ruger barrel band came to be in the box — a
question that Milat was clearly going to have trouble answering in
view of his insistence that he did not know about any of the Ruger
parts. This is a good example of building on opportunities that
present themselves — a vital skill for cross-examination.

Q. In fact, most of the stuff in that bedroom was yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation to give to the ladies and gentlemen

of the jury how a broken Ruger barrel band would come to be in
your box of stuff in the fourth bedroom?
A. If I had a broken barrel band it would have been in the chest of
drawers in my room. That’s where I keep all my gun parts.

‘Please explain to the jury’

2.26 This is a very effective rhetorical device in advocacy, but should only
ever be asked when the advocate knows for certain that there is no
exculpatory explanation. It is a challenge to the witness and it
immediately grabs the jury’s attention because the advocate is
asking, on their behalf, for an explanation. In a subtle way, the
advocate legitimately becomes a mouthpiece for the jury in asking
questions, in the sense that the question being asked is one that the
jury must be asking in their own minds. A good advocate always has
this kind of ‘sympatico’ with the jury, almost like a sixth sense of
being in tune with what they must be thinking at any given time. In
part, this derives from the fact that the advocate chooses the theme,
the order and the pace of the questioning and thus can build up a
series of expectations in the jurors’ minds, and then deliver on those
expectations by asking the appropriate consequential questions that
 arise from the groundwork that the advocate has done by the line of
questioning. This is the very essence of persuasive advocacy. But
beware, many a good cross-examination has been setback by
premature use of this technique, without sufficient groundwork and
probing, such that the witness can, in fact, give a plausible
explanation. In the present instance, the groundwork had been
thoroughly done and Milat had no answer to offer.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury why it came to be
in the Sarnia box?
A. No.

[page 60]

Insinuation
2.27 The cross-examiner is clearly insinuating that there is no other
explanation other than that the barrel band was placed there by the
witness. There are many examples of appropriate and effective
insinuation throughout the cross-examination.

Q. You know that the Browning pistol was found underneath your
washing machine?
A. They tell me that, yes.

Laying the groundwork for a powerful rhetorical question

2.28 A Browning .32 calibre pistol, a magazine and cartridges, together
with a leather pouch and holster, were located under the washing
 machine in Milat’s laundry.18 This was a significant piece of
evidence because it suggested a hurried attempt to hide it, not unlike
the hurried attempt that, on the Crown case, was made by Milat to
hide the Ruger receiver in the work boot in the hall cupboard. The
Crown case was that Milat had indeed hidden these items in a hurry,
in the minutes between when the arresting police first phoned him
to tell him that his house was surrounded by police, and when he
exited the house. Milat denied any knowledge of how this pistol
came to be under his washing machine. He had his work cut out for
him in this regard, because his former wife, Karen, had given
evidence that he had at one time given her this gun, and that she had
made a holster from leather provided by Milat. Also the gun was
engraved with the letters ‘KGB’ and the evidence in the Crown case
established that much of Milat’s property was engraved, sometimes
in a ‘quirky’ way; for example, he agreed that he owned a black
powder revolver that had been located in the Alcove at Walter
Milat’s home, and this revolver was engraved with the name
‘Texas’.19 His former wife confirmed that Milat owned an engraving
machine. Tedeschi capitalises well on this background evidence to
press Milat for an explanation, and Milat again says that the
Browning must have been planted. Tedeschi immediately exposes
the absurdity of this with his rhetorical question, ‘Why would
anyone want to plant this gun that had nothing to do with the
Belanglo Forest murders?’. This groundwork also demonstrates the
high degree of thought and analysis that the cross-examiner has
given to his preparation and in his study of the evidentiary material,
which makes such effective lines of questioning possible.

Q. Did you put it there?

A. No.
 [page 61]

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Positive.

Q. You have told this court that you hadn’t seen that Browning since
1987?
A. That’s right.

Q. So is this what you are suggesting, that quite apart from someone
coming into your home and planting Ruger parts, right?
A. Yes.

Q. Ruger parts that are very closely connected to the Belanglo State
Forest murders, right?
A. Right.

Q. Somebody has come into your home and placed the Browning
pistol underneath your washing machine, right?
A. Right.

Q. You follow so far?

A. Yes.

Q. A firearm that has got nothing to do with the Belanglo State Forest
murders, is that what you’re saying?
A. Well, you’re telling me --

Q. Is that what you’re telling the ladies and gentlemen of this jury, that
 someone has come into your home and deposited Ruger parts in
obvious places and unobvious places in your home, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And someone has come in and deposited a Browning pistol under

your washing machine, a pistol that has nothing to do with the
Belanglo State Forest murders, right?
A. Right.

Q. Do you agree that that is what you are asking this jury to accept?
A. Something like that, yes.

Grabbing the attention of the jury

2.29 It is often effective to use the word ‘jury’ in a question; it
immediately grabs their attention and punctuates or underscores the
significance of the point being made — that is just simple, good
communication. It is, however, important to do this sparingly and at
appropriate times. The accomplished advocate will, of course,
endeavor to keep the jury constantly interested and engaged.
However, there are times when an extra cue is needed, such as here,
to focus their attention on a significant point being made.

[page 62]

Q. Now the same person — do you think the same person has
deposited all those items, the Ruger items, all the Ruger parts that
you claim to know nothing about, and the Browning pistol?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Would you have a look at exhibit GF. (Exhibit GF handed to
witness.) (Approached.) That is the receiver found in your boot.
You agree that it is your boot?
A. Yes.

Approaching the witness with a key exhibit — an occasion

to be put to good use
2.30 This is a dramatic moment. Tedeschi knew this because he was
placing into Milat’s hands the Ruger receiver20 that, on the Crown’s
case, was a part of the gun used to murder Caroline Clarke and had
been used at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene. This forceful
and confronting use of exhibits can have tremendous impact and, if
it can be followed through with a strong point, the effect is very
powerful. Tedeschi did not waste this moment and introduced a line
of evidence that he knew comprised compelling evidence in the
Crown case. The Ruger receiver, which Milat asserted had been
planted by someone, had camouflage paint on it (along one edge). A
number of other items had been located that had also been painted
in camouflage, including a paintball mask (found at Eagle Vale) and
gun (found in a box in the alcove at Walter’s house).21 Also found in
bedroom 4 of his house was a plastic model of a jet fighter that had
been painted in camouflage by Milat, and tins of enamel paint in
camouflage colours. The box containing Milat’s black powder
revolver, located in the alcove at Walter Milat’s house, was also
painted camouflage colours22 as was his SKK rifle found among the
items stored in Walter’s alcove. Ivan Milat’s ownership of these
other items was not in dispute. In addition, expert evidence had been
called in the Crown case from a scientist, Mr Gothard, to the effect
that he had tested the chemical composition of the three colours of
camouflage paint on the receiver and bolt assembly with the
paintball mask and paintball gun magazine that Milat had not
 disputed were his, and they were essentially indistinguishable in
colour and composition. In this series of questions and answers
Milat admits to having painted a number of items camouflage, but
denies having so painted the receiver — a stance that looked
untenable in view of the many items he had painted camouflage. The
clear implication was that the receiver was also Milat’s.

Q. Found by the police in your boot. Somebody, you say has gone to
the trouble not just to put this into your boot, but has also gone to
the trouble of painting it a camouflage colour. That’s what you tell
the court?
A. That’s what it looks like.

[page 63]

Q. Did you paint th is camouflage colour?

A. No.

Q. Do you agree that it’s the same camouflage colours as a lot of

items that you have painted?
A. I agree it’s camouflage.

Q. And do you agree that the camouflage colours that you have
painted on a lot of other items are exactly the same as these
colours?
A. No.

Questions where either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer are helpful to

the cross-examiner
2.31 Tedeschi knows that the camouflage paints are virtually
indistinguishable — a ‘no’ answer from the witness will be seen for
what it is — evasive and refusing to acknowledge the obvious. A ‘yes’
answer supports the proposition that the cross-examiner is seeking
to establish. Whichever way the witness answers the question, it will
assist the cross-examiner.

Q. Well, you have painted your paintball gun camouflage?

A. Yes.

Q. You have painted your magazine of the paintball gun camouflage?

A. Yes.

Q. You have painted the paintball mask camouflage colours?

A. Yes.

Q. The same colours as this?

A. Camouflage, yes.

Q. Same camouflage colours as this, right — brown, green and khaki?

A. That’s camouflage colours, yes.

Q. And you have painted the very same three camouflage colours on
a number of items at your home, haven’t you?
A. Yes.

Q. The very same camouflage colours?

A. Same colours, yes.
Q. So you say that someone has gone to the trouble of painting those
very same camouflage colours on this Ruger receiver?
A. I’m not saying that. You are.

[page 64]

Q. Well, do you agree that someone has gone to the trouble of

painting some camouflage colours on this receiver?
A. Somebody has painted it.

Q. And do you agree that they are the very same camouflage colours
that you have painted on a number of items at your home?
A. They look similar.

Q. They are the same, aren’t they?

A. They look similar.

Q. They are the same, aren’t they, the same colours?

A. You could say that twenty times. I’d still say it’s the same, what I’m
saying.

Q. You have heard evidence of Mr Gothard, the scientist. They

appear to be indistinguishable in colour?
A. I don’t recall that part.

Q. Do you dispute that the colours are indistinguishable on the number

of items that you have painted camouflage colours?
A. I thought I read ‘similar’.
Q. Do you agree that you painted the paintball gun, the magazine,
the mask, camouflage colours?
A. I agree.

Q. Do you agree that you painted the SKK rifle camouflage colours?
A. I agree.

Q. And do you agree that the camouflage colours are

indistinguishable from the colours on this receiver?
A. They are the same colours.

Q. So do you say that it is sheer coincidence that the colours on this

receiver are the same as the colours on your paintball gun and
your SKK?
A. I’d imagine so.

Finishing a theme with a leading question that can have only

one answer as all other possibilities have been ruled out
2.32 This question is a fine example of the cross-examiner’s right to ask
leading questions; the question can only be answered in the
affirmative because all other explanations have been ruled out by
previous answers. The expression ‘sheer coincidence’ highlights the
incredibility of the witness’s assertion and implicit in it is, in effect,
an unspoken submission to the jury to the effect of ‘You don’t expect
us to believe this do you?’. This question constitutes the denouement
of what has been a telling line of cross-examination.

[page 65]
Q. So is this what you are asking the jury to accept — that someone
has not only come into your home, switched off your alarm, come
and deposited an item in your boot, gone up into your roof space
and deposited Ruger parts in the wall cavity, but somebody has
painted this receiver and indeed the trigger mechanism from the
wall cavity, exhibit EV, has painted them the same camouflage
colours as items that you have painted in camouflage colours, is
that what you’re saying to th is court? Do you understand the
question?
A. No, not really.

‘String of beads’ question

2.33 This question is a question which is designed to neatly summarise a
number of matters that have been agreed to by the witness during
the course of the cross-examination, then rolling them into a
package and confronting the witness with the unlikelihood, indeed,
the absurdity, that they would be present in combination. It is done
extremely effectively here, and the reader will appreciate how much
groundwork had to be carefully and painstakingly done to reach this
point.

Q. I show you the trigger mechanism that was found in the wall cavity,
part of exhibit EV. Would you have a look at this. See that is
painted camouflage colours?
A. Yes.

Q. Have a look at exhibit GF, the receiver, they appear to be painted

the same camouflage colours?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree that those are camouflage colours that you have
painted the SKK rifle, and the same colours?
A. Something similar, yes.

Q. The same three colours?

A. Yes.

Q. Green, brown and khaki, is that right?

A. Right.

Q. You have also painted the paintball gun the same colour. Do you
agree the same colours?
A. I believe so.

Q. So what you ask this court to believe is this, that someone has not
only come into your home, switched off your alarm, deposited the
Ruger receiver in the boot, gone up into your ceiling space,
deposited the trigger mechanism and the other parts of the Ruger
into the wall cavity, but someone has gone to the trouble of
painting them the same camouflage paints that you paint some of
your other weapons, is that right?
A. You want me to agree to what you just said?

[page 66]

Q. Is that what you are asking this court to believe?

A. No, I don’t know what they believe, whoever put that part in I
don’t know how they did it.
Don’t answer a question from the witness
2.34 The cross-examiner asks the questions. Tedeschi correctly does not
respond to the question but simply presses the witness for an
answer. The witness appears to be having difficulty with these
questions and this is usually a clue that the cross-examiner should
continue to press the issue.

Q. What you are suggesting someone has painted those items those
colours, is that what you are asking the jury --
A. It’s not an uncommon thing for camouflage guns.

Q. You are saying it is sheer coincidence someone has painted them

the same colours as you have?
A. I’ve seen numerous firearms painted camouflage.

Q. You are saying it’s sheer coincidence they are the same colours as
your other guns and paintball gun that you have coloured
camouflage?
A. I would agree with you there, yes.

Repetition
2.35 The repetition of the phrase ‘sheer coincidence’ in consecutive
questions has a driving effect that emphasises the corner the witness
has put himself in by his answers — there is an artistry in knowing
when such repetitious verbal pummelling is appropriate — if badly
or inappropriately done, it can do damage to the cross-examiner’s
case and the cross-examiner will appear bullying, which he or she
must never be. But if appropriately done, as it is here, it is forceful
and effective advocacy that emphasises a critical point and the
 weakness of the position taken by the witness.

Q. Do you think it is sheer coincidence or do you think someone is

trying to plant items on you?
A. Well, I never put them there.

Q. Do you think it is sheer coincidence?

A. In what?

Q. The camouflage colour, somebody has painted it camouflage?

A. I’ve seen guns before painted camouflage colours.

Q. You had some khaki paint in the fourth bedroom, a near empty jar?
A. I had paint in there, yes.

[page 67]

Q. Do you recall Mr Gothard’s evidence that one of the colours on the

Ruger parts, one of the camouflage colours was indistinguishable
from one of the jars of paint you had, the near empty jar. Do you
recall that evidence?
A. I never heard him use that word, no.

Q. Do you accept that you had a jar of paint that was

indistinguishable from one of the colours on those Ruger parts?
A. I could have had one that was similar.

Q. Now you also had or the police also found exhibit FJ, a single
fired cartridge case in a plastic bag in bedroom 4. You do not
 dispute that, do you?
A. I can’t. I don’t know what they found in there.

Pressing and undermining

2.36 Police had located a fired Winchester .22 calibre cartridge case23
inside a plastic bag also containing .45 and .32 calibre ammunition,
the bag being located in a cardboard box on the bed in bedroom 4 of
Milat’s house. Inspector Prior, a ballistics expert called by the
Crown, had given evidence that this cartridge had, in his opinion,
been fired by the Ruger bolt found in the wall cavity. Tedeschi
presses Milat in the expectation that Milat will have no choice but to
adhere to his evidence that it too must have been planted by
someone, as it couldn’t have been his (according to Milat). The
imagined ‘planter’ has gone to bizarre lengths to make this evidence
almost impossible to find — so much so as to seriously undermine
the validity of the ‘planted evidence’ theory that Milat had
committed himself to.

Q. You heard evidence it was consistent with having been fired by the
Ruger bolt found in your wall cavity?
A. I’ve heard that, yes.

Q. Did you put that single fired cartridge case into the fourth
bedroom?
A. No.

Q. So what you say is this, is it, that somebody has not only gone to
the trouble of putting the bolt into the boot, putting the Ruger parts
into the wall cavity, but has also put a single fired cartridge case
into the fourth bedroom. Is that what you say?
A. No.

The reductio ad absurdum question

2.37 The cross-examiner has reached a point where the witness’s position
is simply untenable and absurd. The question asks the witness to
agree with the absurd proposition. Such a question powerfully
anticipates and telegraphs to the jury a submission that will likely be
made in the cross-examiner’s closing address.

[page 68]

Q. How do you say that fired cartridge case got into your fourth
bedroom?
A. I have no idea, I didn’t put it there.

Q. If you did not put it there somebody must have?

A. That’s correct.

Don’t take ‘no’ for an answer

2.38 When it is clear for all to see that the answer must be ‘yes’, the cross-
examiner should not accept ‘no’ for an answer. The only exception
would be if the cross-examiner wants to highlight the apparent lack
of credibility of the witness, and submit in address that the witness
would not acknowledge the obvious, and that you would not accept
his or her version of events. Within two or three questions, the
cross-examiner has turned the witness’s answer to ‘yes’.
Q. You are not suggesting the police have planted it, that is correct?
A. I’m not suggesting nothing.

Q. What you are suggesting someone has put it there, is that what
you are saying, not the police, not you?
A. Somebody must have, yes.

Q. Is this what you are asking the jury to believe, somebody has come
into your home and in effect planted all those items?
A. That’s — roughly somebody did that, yes.

Q. Somebody has deliberately planted all those items in your home,

that is what you are asking the jury to accept, isn’t it?
A. That’s right.

Q. You acknowledge that you had a book called Select Fire 10/22?
A. Yes.

Insinuation
2.39 Select Fire 10/22 was a technical manual found by police on the
bookshelf in Milat’s living room.24 It gave detailed instructions on
how to convert a Ruger 10/22 rifle into a select fire weapon; that is, a
fully automatic machine gun. This manual had Milat’s fingerprints
on some pages. The obvious line of questioning was: ‘Why, unless
you had a Ruger 10/22 rifle, would you have such a manual?’.

[page 69]
Q. Exhibit GK?
A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit GK is a book on how to convert a Ruger 10/22 into a

machine gun, isn’t it?
A. Select Fire weapon, yes.

Q. Into a machine gun, a fully automatic machine gun?

A. Does it say that on the front?

Q. Well, isn’t that what this is all about?

A. Into Select Fire, yes.

Q. What does Select Fire mean?

A. You can change the mode of operation, how the gun works.

Q. You can make it fully automatic?

A. That’s right.

Q. From a semi-automatic to a fully automatic?

A. Yes.

Q. Fully automatic being whenever you pull the trigger it will keep on
firing?
A. That’s correct.

Q. That is like a machine gun?

A. Yes.
Q. So this book is how to convert a Ruger 10/22, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Into a machine gun?

A. Into a Select Fire weapon.

Q. Into a fully automatic weapon, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. It has got precise details about exactly where to put the holes, how
to connect different things, precise details how to do it, is that
right?
A. That’s correct.

Q. It’s about converting no other weapon but a Ruger 10/22, is that

right?
A. That’s correct.

Q. I mean you could not use this book to convert any other weapon at
all in the world other than a Ruger 10/22, is that right?
A. I don’t know.

[page 70]

Q. Well, it has got precise measurements in it, hasn’t it, down to the
thousandth of either an inch or centimetre, I am not sure which, is
that right?
A. Yes.
The importance of the cross-examiner’s depth of knowledge
of the evidence
2.40 This is well demonstrated in these questions about the Select Fire
10/22 manual — this comes through mastery of the brief and this is a
moment where that comes to the fore. The questions could only be
asked by an advocate in possession of a very detailed knowledge of
the evidence. The fruit of such knowledge is apparent in this
example where Tedeschi is able to immediately counter what
appears to be Milat’s hedging ‘I don’t know’ answer with specifics
that require the witness to answer the question in the affirmative,
and the cross-examiner remains in control of the narrative. Never
underestimate the importance of detailed knowledge of the evidence.
Nothing is more valuable to the cross-examiner, and it will ensure a
smooth flow of the cross-examination and vastly improve the
advocate’s chances of remaining in control of the witness at all times.

Q. So would not be any use to have this book except to convert a

Ruger 10/22, is that right?
A. That’s right, yes.

Q. And this book has got your fingerprint on it?

A. They tell me, yes.

Q. Some of your fingerprints on it?

A. I imagine should have been on every page.

Q. Would you tell us where you got this book from?

A. I remember I bought it at one of the gun shows I’ve visited.
Q. A gun show?
A. Yes.

Q. Which gun show was that?

A. I’m not sure if down at, where they hold the Easter Show, or the
one at Homebush.

Q. And when was it?

A. From 90 onwards.

Q. Sorry?
A. From 1990 onwards, something like that I would have got it.

Q. Around 1990?
A. Onwards, yes.

Q. Or onwards?
A. I could have got it in 1992, I’m not sure.

[page 71]

Q. In 1990 you were interested enough in converting a Ruger 10/22

that you got this book?

OBJECTION.
A. No I was not.

QUESTION REPHRASED.
Q. In 1990 or onwards you were interested enough in the conversion
of a Ruger 10/22 to a fully automatic to buy this publication?
A. I bought a couple of other magazines that same day.

Q. Just answer my question. Is this the case, you were interested

enough in converting a Ruger 10/22 in order to buy this
publication?
A. No.

‘Just answer my question’

2.41 This is a simple yet important technique to stop the witness from
straying.

Q. You did not buy it to convert any other weapon?

A. I didn’t buy it to convert anything.

Statement or assertion in the form of a question

2.42 Having had the witness finally agree that the manual was for the
specific purpose of converting a Ruger 10/22 into a fully automatic
weapon, the next question, which is also an assertion, contains the
properly drawn and obvious inference: why would he buy such a
Ruger-specific conversion manual unless he had a Ruger 10/22?

Q. You bought this because you were interested in converting a Ruger

10/22?
A. I brought it because I was interested how it was done.

Q. You were interested in how the conversion of a Ruger 10/22 was

 done, weren’t you?
A. Yes.

Q. And that is because you had a Ruger 10/22?

A. No I didn’t.

The ‘focusing’ or ‘flag-planting’ question

2.43 This question focuses once more on (and is a reminder ‘flag’ to the
jury of) one of the critical issues the prosecution wished to prove —
that Milat possessed a Ruger 10/22 rifle. Milat’s denial does not sit
well with the evidence that the cross-examiner

[page 72]

has, by this point, well and truly established; namely, Milat’s

possession of so many parts from a Ruger 10/22 and items specific to
the conversion of such a gun into an automatic weapon. This
technique of flagging important issues at appropriate opportunities
such as this keeps the jury focused on the critical factual issues. In
the face of such strong evidence about the Ruger, any way the
witness answers this question will be helpful to the cross-examiner
— if he agrees, then the cross-examiner’s point is accepted; if he
disagrees, his credibility is severely damaged in the face of such
strong evidence, as he is denying the conclusion that the evidence
overwhelmingly points to. An inexperienced cross-examiner may
feel disappointed with such an answer, but it is important to
appreciate that a denial of the obvious can be a helpful answer for
the cross-examiner.
Q. Do you remember how much you paid for it?
A. 8 or 9 dollars.

Q. You also had in your home a manual for a Ruger 10/22, didn’t
you?
A. Yes.

The ‘building’ question

2.44 If the cross-examiner has several distinct pieces of evidence
(building blocks) all pointing to a particular fact to be established, it
is important to build one upon the other in a logical order. The fact
to be established here is that Milat had a Ruger 10/22 rifle. The
evidence pointing to this fact included Milat’s possession of Ruger
10/22 specific items such as the Select Fire 10/22 manual and a Ruger
10/22 owner’s manual found in bedroom 4. Having dealt fully with
one, Tedeschi moves inexorably on to the other.

(The Crown Prosecutor asked to be handed exhibit P.)

Q. While that is being obtained, in relation to the conversion of a

Ruger 10/22, do you agree that a Ramline magazine such as this
one, which is part of exhibit EV from the wall cavity,25 a Ramline
magazine would be much better than the standard 10 shot
magazine that comes with a Ruger rifle?
A. Agree to what?

Maintaining pace
2.45 Note how the cross-examiner maintains the pace of questioning —
rather than waiting for the exhibit to be retrieved and thus creating a
 lull, Tedeschi uses the time to ask a related question. Pace is
important at certain points, such as here, to maintain the
momentum of the cross-examination.

[page 73]

Q. Do you agree that if a person, if any person was going to convert

a Ruger 10/22 rifle to automatic, it would be much better to use a
Ramline magazine like th is one than it would be to use the
standard magazine, the 10 shot magazine that comes with a
Ruger rifle?26
A. I don’t know.

Q. Oh, Mr Milat. If you are going to convert a Ruger 10/22 to

automatic, fully automatic, it is better to have a 50 round
magazine than a 10 round one, isn’t it?
A. How would I know?

Q. Oh, Mr Milat. If a person is going to convert a weapon to fully

automatic, wouldn’t it be better to have a 50 round magazine than
a 10 round magazine, do you agree with that?
A. I don’t know what you want me to agree with.

The exasperated ‘Oh!’

2.46 This should be used sparingly so as not to lose its obvious impact,
which is to invite the jury to join in the advocate’s exasperation and
disbelief at the incredibility of the answer given by the witness. Used
sparingly, as here, it has a powerful appeal. If over-used it may seem
belittling which, more often than not, is inappropriate and is apt to
 invite the jury’s sympathy for the witness. An advocate must never
abuse their position and their privilege of being entitled to question
witnesses on oath. Never get personal. Sarcasm may occasionally be
appropriate, although it must be used sparingly.

The ‘win/win’ question

2.47 Whatever way the witness answers this last question will be helpful
to the cross-examiner, because the correct answer is obvious to
everyone in court. If the witness gives that answer, it is helpful to the
cross-examiner. If he does not, his credibility is seriously in question.
This kind of question can be used when the inference to be drawn
from the evidence is overwhelmingly obvious.

Q. Do you agree that if you are going to convert a Ruger 10/22 to

fully automatic it would be better to have one of these 50 shot
Ramline magazines than a 10 shot, do you agree with that?
A. It all depends on the person.

Q. Well, if you had on it a 10 shot magazine, the first time you would
fire it it would probably use up most of the magazine?
A. I don’t know how they operate.

[page 74]

Q. Do you think it would be better with a fully automatic weapon to

have a 50 round magazine than a 10 round magazine?
A. I wouldn’t know.
Exposing the witness’s lack of credibility by asking a simple
question with an obvious answer
2.48 This question was likely asked in the expectation that the witness
would avoid conceding the obvious answer to the question (which is
exactly what happens). The cross-examiner underscored the point
by asking the question several more times, receiving a similar reply.

Q. No idea?
A. No idea.

Q. You honestly tell this court you haven’t the vaguest idea whether a
50 shot magazine would be more suitable for any automatic
weapon than 10 shot magazine?
A. I don’t know whether it’s more suitable or not.

Q. Would it be more suitable to use a fully automatic weapon with a

50 shot magazine than a 10 shot magazine?
A. I’ve never used a fully automatic weapon.

Q. Do you think it might be more suitable to use it or not?

A. If you start thinking about it, you could think like that, yes.

Q. I see, but you of course have never thought like that?

A. I have never had a Ruger --

Q. Have you ever thought about converting any weapon to fully

automatic?
A. I have thought about it, yes.
Q. So have you thought about whether it would be better to have a
50 shot magazine than a 10 shot magazine?
A. No.

Q. Never thought about it?

A. No.

Q. Now you have seen the instruction manual for the Ruger?
A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit P, you have seen that, haven’t you? (Exhibit P handed to

witness.)
A. I have seen it, yes.

[page 75]

Q. You agree that the 4 4 92 is your handwriting?27

A. I don’t agree but I possibly saw this — I don’t recall doing it. That’s
all I’m saying. I could have done it.

Q. Do you agree that it is definitely your handwriting?

A. Well, I wouldn’t know. I don’t remember doing it. That’s about it.

Persistence
2.49 Persistence is an important quality for a cross-examiner. The answer
to the question, in light of all the evidence, is obvious, but the
witness does not immediately concede the answer and this is likely
to damage his credibility. The cross-examiner persists by asking the
 identical question no fewer than three times in a row, and eventually
the witness reluctantly concedes the possibility that it may be his
handwriting. The witness’s hedging has exposed an apparent lack of
credibility, and the cross-examiner has also finally been given
something close, at this point, to the admission that he is after. This
is a telling passage of evidence.

Q. Do you agree that it is definitely your handwriting?

A. I agree that that book was found in my room.

Q. Do you agree it is definitely your handwriting?

A. No.

Q. You don’t?
A. But it probably is.

Q. Do you have a habit of writing on things the date when you got
them?
A. Pardon?

Q. Do you have a habit of writing on things the date when you got
them?
A. Certain things, yes.

Q. Like manuals?
A. Possibly, sometimes I do.

Q. Firearm accessories?
A. I don’t know what you mean there.
 [page 76]

Q. Just generally, firearm accessories?

A. No. I could, but I’m not sure what --

Q. Ammunition?
A. Write the dates on ammunition?

Q. Yes.
A. On ammunition or the boxes, you’re talking about?

Q. Well, on any sort of ammunition?

A. Sometimes on the cases I might write when I bought it.

Q. See, it’s your habit, isn’t it, that some things that you buy you write
the date on?
A. I wouldn’t say it’s a habit.

Q. Well, is it something that you sometimes do?

A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. Is this the case, that when you write the date on things you don’t
put a stroke between the day and the month and the year or a dot
— you just write the number like this?
A. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.

Q. But sometimes you write the date without writing any strokes or
dots at all?
A. That’s right.
Q. That’s unusual, isn’t it?
A. For me?

Q. No. Have you ever seen anybody else do that?

A. I wouldn’t have a clue what you do.

Q. Have you ever seen anybody else doing that?

A. No, I never took any notice actually.

Q. Would you have a look please at folder 7 tab B photo 10. (Shown
to witness.) (Approached.) I show you a photograph. See there are
a lot of items concerning your black powder revolver?
A. It’s a black rifle.

Confronting the witness with an exhibit28

2.50 Here Tedeschi shows Milat a photograph of a number of items (for
use with his black powder revolver) found on a shelf in a wardrobe
in bedroom 3 at the Eagle Vale house, in order to demonstrate
Milat’s unusual way of writing dates on items.

[page 77]

The purpose of this is to establish that Milat has also written the date
on the Ruger manual, which he appears to be so reluctant to
concede. By taking the witness step-by-step through what obviously
appears in Photo 38, Tedeschi finally obtains the concession from
the witness. This is a fine example of simple confrontation by use of
an exhibit.
Q. Are those items that come from the shelf in the built-in cupboard in
your bedroom, bedroom 3?
A. Yes.

Q. And can you see the top — on the top there are some percussion
caps. They have got 26 9 92 on them. Can you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. No dots, no strokes, that’s right?

A. That’s right.

Q. Then down the bottom left there’s another item that has got a
number on it?
A. That’s right.

Q. Can you tell us what that number is?

A. 9 12 91.

Asking the witness to read out loud from an exhibit

2.51 Asking the witness to read out loud damaging evidence or contents
from an undisputed but important exhibit, particularly if the witness
is the author of the writing, is a very effective way of presenting such
evidence because the witness becomes an active participant in the
presentation of the case against him. Tedeschi has employed this
technique frequently and effectively in his cross-examination of
Milat. This technique has a dramatic impact on the jury and it
confronts the witness with the truth, and can be agitating to the
untruthful witness. The technique also reminds the witness, and
everyone in court, that the cross-examiner is in control of this part
of the proceedings, and this keeps a would-be difficult witness from
 straying from the topic of the questioning.

Q. And do both of those appear to be dates?

A. I’d say they are.

Q. Both of them haven’t got any dots or strokes or anything like that?
A. That’s right.

Q. That’s your way of writing dates, isn’t it?

A. Sometimes, yes.

[page 78]

Q. Having seen that, are you more confident that it is your

handwriting on this Ruger manual?
A. That’s got 4 4 92 on it. That’s — I’m saying that’s my manual. I’m
just saying I can’t recall putting the writing on, that’s all.

Q. You agree it is your writing, do you?

A. Most probably is.
(Legal discussion in the absence of the jury)

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Mr Milat, I show you exhibit GK, which is

the Select Fire 10/22 book about converting a Ruger 10/22 to fully
automatic.29 Could you go to the page that I have opened there, which
is the last part of the foreword. (Shown.) Do you see the last paragraph
there? I’d like to read it to you.
‘There is a 50 round magazine available that with some modifications
and testing can be made 98 to 99 per cent reliable and that’s pretty
good odds’.
Do you remember reading that part of the Select Fire 10/22 book
when you pored over it and put your fingerprint on every page?
A. No.

Incorporating into the question a previous admission of the

witness
2.52 Milat had previously given evidence that he imagined his
fingerprints would be on every page of the Select Fire 10/22 manual.
Reminding the witness (and the jury) of this, by this form of
question, strengthens the impact and force of the question.

Q. You don’t remember reading it?

A. No. I could of but.

Q. But somebody you say has not only deposited Ruger parts in your
wall cavity by getting up through your manhole, but has in fact
deposited a 50 round magazine — the kind described in this
book, is that right?
A. It sounds like that, yes.

Linking, building and echoing

2.53 The 50 round magazine was also found in the wall cavity, in close
proximity to the Ruger trigger mechanism.30 Having linked Milat
 with the Select Fire 10/22 manual for converting a Ruger 10/22 into a
fully automatic machine gun, and having identified a 50-round
magazine, such as the one found, as being recommended

[page 79]

for such a conversion, Tedeschi’s question links back to, and echoes,
the important questions he has asked previously about Milat’s
assertion that the gun parts were planted by someone else. Milat’s
‘planting’ theory seems more and more absurd when linked to the
evidence that Milat had purchased the manual to convert a Ruger
10/22 into a fully automatic weapon, and that the manual
recommended the use of a 50-shot magazine of the kind found in
the roof space.

Q. The Ruger manual, you have admitted to the court that it’s yours?31
A. Pardon?

Q. You have admitted to the court that the Ruger magazine is yours —
I’m sorry, the Ruger manual is yours?
A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit P?
A. Yes.

Q. And in fact it was contained within a book on the dresser in the

fourth bedroom, the book being called ‘Bituminous Surfacing,
Volume 2, Asphalt Work’.
A. It was. I thought it was the other — I had two books. One was a
 red-covered one and I thought it was in that one, but it could have
been in that one.

Q. This is a book of yours, this Bituminous Surfacing book?

A. Yes.

Q. You are the only person in your family who is working in the
bituminous surfacing area?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. This manual, I think you have acknowledged — and correct me if I

am wrong — but you acknowledge that this handwriting 4 4 92 is
yours, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Mr Milat, if the manual is yours then the Ruger was yours, wasn’t
it?
A. No.

The ‘climax’ question

2.54 This very simple question represents the climax of the line of
questioning about the Ruger manual. The question distills in a few
words the essential conclusion that arises from all of the preceding
answers Milat has given about it. It is

[page 80]
 important for a cross-examiner to ask such ‘climax’ questions. They
act as pithy, clear summaries for the jury of important points. Such
questions can often be identified by the fact that they might just as
easily have been asked as a rhetorical question by the advocate in
their closing address to the jury, and often are. It is always an
effective technique to echo back to such a well-flagged point in the
evidence when the time comes for the closing address.

Q. Why on earth would you have a manual for a Ruger 10/22 rifle if
you didn’t have a Ruger 10/22 rifle?
A. I’ve had lots of gun manuals.

Q. Well, who gave you this manual?

A. I assume Wally did.

Q. Wally did?
A. Yes.

Q. Why on earth would Walter give you a manual for a Ruger

10/22?
A. So I could read about it, I suppose.

Q. If it was just to read about it — you wrote the date of purchase on

it, didn’t you?
A. I’m accepting I did.

Q. And you say that it’s yours?

A. It is now, yes.

Q. Well why on earth would someone give you a manual to keep and
 why would you write the date of purchase on it unless you own the
rifle?
A. I’ve got a lot of books but I don’t own the products.

Pressing the witness

2.55 The cross-examiner here, and in the several questions that follow,
presses the witness for an answer to a question that Milat appears to
demonstrate discomfort with. When a witness appears to be
avoidant, it should set bells ringing for the cross-examiner that they
have hit upon a real problem area for the witness, and the best
course is usually to persist, as Tedeschi does here, and to probe and
keep pressing for an answer. If the witness continues to be evasive, it
requires firm handling on the part of the cross-examiner, and
Tedeschi’s chastening ‘Just answer the question’ is fully justified
here. See how the witness makes several more attempts at avoiding
the question, until finally he admits that he can’t answer it. Tedeschi
says: ‘Thank you’, signifying appropriate mock gratitude that the
witness has at last admitted what was plain from the outset.
Tedeschi’s repeated use of ‘Can you think of a single reason …?’ is
effective and confident in the knowledge that none is likely to be
forthcoming. As a question, it comes close

[page 81]

to a rhetorical one, and the witness’s inability to offer any reason

presses home the salient point that the strong implication is that the
gun had been purchased by Milat, despite his denials to the contrary.

Q. Just answer the question. Why would someone give you a manual
 and why would you write the date of purchase on it unless it was
your rifle?
A. I can’t answer that. I’ve got the book but I haven’t got the gun.

‘Just answer the question’

2.56 Maintaining control in response to a largely non-responsive answer,
the cross-examiner repeats the question and insists on an answer.

Q. Can you think of any reason why someone would give you a Ruger
10/22 manual and why you would write the purchase date on it
unless the Ruger 10/22 rifle was yours?
A. I can’t give any reason.

‘Can you think of any reason why …?’

2.57 This very confident question is used for emphasis of an important
point, but only when the cross-examiner is certain that there can be
no plausible reason. This technique should not be used if there may
be a plausible reason. In this instance it is properly used, and Milat’s
response is that he cannot give any reason. This is a telling moment.

Q. Can’t think of one single reason why that would happen, unless the
Ruger was yours?
A. Because I’ve got the manual you think the rifle is mine?

The cross-examiner is not there to answer questions from the

witness
2.58 The cross-examiner is not giving evidence and should never answer
 such a question from a witness. It is the cross-examiner who is
entitled to ask questions, not the witness, and Tedeschi appropriately
refuses to respond, and continues with the questioning. Persistence
is required here and yields results when the witness eventually
concedes that he cannot answer the question.

Q. No. Just answer my question. Can you think of one single reason?
A. Why he give me the manual?

[page 82]

Q. Can you think of one single reason why someone would give you
a manual and you would write the date of purchase on it other
than if the rifle was yours?
A. The rifle isn’t mine.

Q. Just answer my question please. Can you think of one reason?

A. Of what?

Q. Can you think of one reason why someone would give you this
manual and you would put the date of purchase on it other than if
the Ruger 10/22 was yours? Can you think of one other reason?
A. The only reason I would probably write a date on that would be so
I know what year it was, what year the gun is.

Q. Why would you write the date of purchase on this book and be
given a book, so that the book is yours --
A. Well, what’s wrong with it?
Q. -- unless the rifle was yours?
A. The rifle isn’t mine.

Q. Unless the rifle was yours, Mr Milat, why?

A. I got the book, all right? I haven’t got the rifle.

Q. Why would someone give you this book so that it’s your book,
unless the rifle was yours?
A. He give me the book.

Q. No, just answer my question please?

A. I can’t answer it.

Q. Thank you. I suggest to you that you did have the new — or it has
sometimes been called the unused Ruger 10/22 rifle?
A. No I didn’t.

The rule in Browne v Dunn

2.59 This and the following question are tradesman-like questions to
finish off the line of cross-examination about the Ruger 10/22 and to
formally put to the witness that he had possession of the new/unused
Ruger, to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
(HL). That rule is a rule of fairness which Hunt J (as he then was)
described in Allied Pastoral Holdings P/L v Commissioner of
Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 at p 16 as follows:
It has in my experience always been a rule of professional practice that, unless notice
has already clearly been given of the cross-examiner’s intention to rely upon such
matter, it is necessary to put to an opponent’s witness in cross-examination the
nature of the case upon which it is proposed to rely in contradiction of his evidence,
particularly where that case relies upon
 [page 83]

inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the proceedings. Such a rule of

practice is necessary both to give the witness the opportunity to deal with that other
evidence, or the inferences to be drawn from it, and to allow the other party the
inference sought to be drawn.

Q. I suggest to you that you moved it amongst the other weapons that
were moved from your place to Walter’s place?
A. Definitely not.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. (Approached) I show you the paint ball gun,

exhibit HG (shown). Would you look at the magazine of that gun?
A. You haven’t got the magazine there.

Probing relevant issues that the witness is unexpectedly

uncomfortable about conceding
2.60 The paintball gun and face mask32 were items Milat conceded were
his. They had both been painted by him in camouflage colours
indistinguishable from those on the Ruger receiver found in his
work boot in the hall cupboard. They had also been engraved — the
paintball gun with the nickname ‘Texas’ which Milat’s former wife
had testified was one of Milat’s nicknames, and the mask with the
initials ‘IM’ as well as the name ‘Texas’ and the word ‘die’ among
other engraved scribblings. Tedeschi was expecting Milat to admit to
having done all the engraving on these and other items such as the
Browning pistol and his black powder revolver (the butt of the
revolver also had the name ‘Texas’ engraved on it).33 But Milat
would not admit to engraving anything on the mask — not even his
own initials that were clearly visible upon it — or the Browning
 pistol on which the initials ‘KGB’ had been engraved. Tedeschi
seized the opportunity that this incongruous denial gave rise to, and
what follows is one of the most telling and dramatic exchanges in the
entire cross-examination. Tedeschi concluded the line of questions
with a rare, but entirely appropriate, use of sarcasm in his
questioning.

Q. The gas cylinder.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the gas cylinder? (Indicated)

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, what is this gun used for?

A. The paint ball gun?

[page 84]

Q. Yes, what is it used for, it is for skirmishing?

A. That’s right.

Q. Would you have a look at the receiver, exhibit GF. (Shown). Do

you see the colours — I ask you to compare the colours on the
magazine with the colours on the paint ball gun. You have not
denied you put the colours on the paint ball gun?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you compare now the colours on the receiver and the
colours on the paint ball gun. Do you agree each has three
 colours?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree that the three colours are indistinguishable, that is,
unable to be told apart?
A. Similar, yes.

Q. More than similar, indistinguishable?

A. No, I don’t agree to that.

A reluctant partial concession when a complete one is

obviously warranted
2.61 The witness’s concession that the camouflage colours are ‘similar’ is
an incomplete answer to the question that they were
‘indistinguishable’. This is not necessarily unfavorable for the cross-
examiner, as it demonstrates the witness’s reluctance to acknowledge
the obvious.

Q. You agree to that?

A. I agree they are very similar.

Q. You disagree they are indistinguishable, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you see the word ‘Texas’ engraved on the paint ball gun? Do
you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the way it is engraved with a series of dots?

A. Yes.

Q. You can see the way that the dots are joined up to make a letter?
A. I don’t know whether the dots join but I can see ‘Texas’ written
there.

Q. Each of them is a series of dots, right?

A. You are saying that, yes.

Q. Have a look — you engraved that, didn’t you?

A. Yes, but I didn’t put it in dots.

[page 85]

Q. Did you engrave with a percussion engraver?

A. With an engraver, yes.

Q. That basically goes up and down?

A. No, it doesn’t.

Q. Can you describe what sort of engraver you used?

A. The police had it. They should be able to have it here. It is just a
little --

Q. The police are not in the witness box, Mr Milat. You tell the court
how the engraver works.
A. You turn it on, hold it down and it goes ‘brrr’ and you write away.

Q. Have a look at the writing ‘KGB’ on the Browning pistol.

 (Shown).34 Do you agree it is the same sort of writing as ‘Texas’
on the paint ball gun? (Shown) Just there above my thumb.
A. Here?

Q. Yes.
A. I see, yes, some scratches there. I couldn’t tell you what it is.

Q. Can you see ‘KGB’ there?

A. No.

Q. You cannot see it at all?

A. I can see scratches there but I can’t see ‘KGB’.

Q. Have you ever heard of the CIA?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the CIA?

A. I have heard it — it is an American secret service organisation.

Q. An American spy organisation is it?

A. Spy, secret service.

Q. Have you heard of ASIO?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what ASIO is?

A. Australian secret service.

Q. Have you ever heard of the KGB?

A. Yes.

[page 86]

Q. What is the KGB?

A. It is the Russian secret service.

Q. Did you engrave ‘KGB’ on any of your belongings?

A. No.

Q. I suggest to you, you have engraved ‘KGB’ on your Browning

pistol?
A. No, when my solicitor pointed that out to me I thought it was
Karen’s name.

Q. You know it isn’t.

A. I don’t know that.

Question conveying disbelief of the answer given

2.62 This forceful form of question in the form of a statement
emphatically conveys to the witness and the jury that the answer is
not acceptable, and by implication invites the witness to retract his
answer. Within a few more questions the witness’s position has
turned completely to accepting that the answer was wrong.

Q. You know they are not her initials?

A. [Answer struck out.]
Q. You know they are not her initials, don’t you?
A. No, I don’t.
(Crown Prosecutor granted access to paint ball face mask, exhibit FP.)

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Do you remember what Karen’s middle

name is?
A. [name stated]

Q. It is not a name that begins with the letter ‘G’, is it?

A. No.

Q. You have always known her first name was Karen and her second
name was [stated name]?
A. I thought it may have been one of the children, I don’t know. I am
only assuming that — you are asking me what ‘KGB’ stands for.

Q. It doesn’t stand for any of Karen’s names, does it — does it, does
it?
A. What’s that?

Q. It does not stand for any of Karen’s names, does it?

A. Not her name, no.

Q. (Approached) Would you have a look please at this face mask

(shown). You engraved that face mask?
A. This here?

[page 87]
Q. Yes — no, all the engraving on that.
A. No.

Q. It is your face mask though, isn’t it?

A. It looks like one, yes.

Q. What have you engraved on it?

A. I don’t think I engraved nothing.

Q. That is an ‘IM’ symbol, do you agree with that? (Indicated)35

A. Yes, I agree it is there.

Q. Have you done this engraving?

A. No.

Q. What, someone has broken into your home and engraved your
name on your paint ball mask?
A. I don’t know. Anyone could have done it.

Q. There is the ‘IM’ symbol with an I superimposed on the M?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you do that?

A. No.

Q. Who do you think might have done that?

A. Could have been anybody.

Q. There is the word ‘Texas’, have you done that?

A. No, I don’t remember putting it on this at all.

Q. Somebody else has written ‘Texas’ on it?

A. Looks like it.

Q. Do you have any idea who?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Any idea?
A. Well, I suppose whoever could have found it, I don’t know.

Q. Do you think someone has come into your home and planted that?
A. No, this was already in my home.

[page 88]

Q. Do you think somebody has come into your home and engraved it
in your home?
A. That’s what I think, yes.

Undermining by logical extrapolation to demonstrate the

absurdity of the answer
2.63 This question is a good example of extrapolating the logical
inference that flows from the witness’s answer; if the answer is
absurd, then any logical extrapolation from it is also likely to be
absurd, and perhaps even more so, thereby emphasising the
improbability of the correctness of the original answer. This is a
technique frequently used in this cross-examination. Here Milat’s
answer (that someone has come into his home and engraved things
 on his paintball mask) is simply unbelievable.

Q. You think somebody has brought an engraver into your home --

A. I had an engraver at home.

Q. Do you think someone has come into your home, used your
engraver and engraved this mask of yours?
A. That’s what I think, yes.

An absurd answer can be very helpful to the cross-examiner

2.64 This answer is helpful to the cross-examiner because it is absurd. It
demonstrates an absence of credibility on this issue on the part of
the witness.

Q. There is the word ‘die’?

A. Yes, I noticed that.

Q. There is a skull and a cross bone?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you do this?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure?

A. Positive.

Q. Quite sure?
A. Positive.
Q. Do you think somebody has come into your home and used your
engraver to engrave those things on your face mask?
A. Yes.

Q. You have engraved ‘Texas’ on some things, haven’t you?

A. That’s right.
(Crown Prosecutor granted access to black powder revolver.)

[page 89]

Q. Perhaps have a look at the bottom of this black powder revolver

(shown). Do you see the word ‘Texas’ there?
A. Yes.

Confronting the witness by asking him to compare

undisputed items with items in dispute
2.65 There was evidence at the trial that ‘Texas’ was one of Milat’s
nicknames. By asking this question (to which the cross-examiner
knew the answer) Tedeschi establishes that Milat used the engraver
on various items and had also engraved the name ‘Texas’ on his
black powder revolver.36 Nevertheless, Milat denied that he
engraved anything, including the initials ‘IM’ (his own initials) or his
nickname ‘Texas’ on his paintball mask. Tedeschi then shows the
witness both items and asks him pertinent questions of comparisons
between them.

Q. Did you engrave that?

A. Yes.
Q. On each side there is the word ‘Texas’.
A. Yes.

Q. What I would like you to do is have a look at the letters — the way
in which the letters are engraved, particularly the ‘X’ and the ‘S’, in
fact all the letters, and tell us if they appear to be done in exactly
the same way in the word ‘Texas’ — do the letters appear to be
done in exactly the same way?
A. They both say ‘Texas’.

Q. Is the ‘T’ written the same way?

A. No.

Q. Different, are they?

A. Yes, come and have a look. Get a load of the ‘T’ on that one and
the ‘T’ on that (indicated).

Q. You say the ‘T’ is different?

A. What do you think?

Q. Are you saying that the ‘T’ goes up a little bit above the cross of
the ‘T’?
A. You are asking whether they are exactly the same and I am not
saying they are.

Q. Are they pretty much the same?

A. They are different.

[page 90]
Q. They are different?
A. They both spell ‘Texas’.

Q. Is it written in more or less the same way?

A. No.

Q. Does the writing appear to be done by the same person?

A. No.

Q. Do you think it has been done by somebody else?

A. I would say so, yes.

Q. You see, there is a lot of other scribbling.

A. I noticed that.

Q. Did you do that?

A. No.

Q. But you did put the ‘IM’s?

A. No.

Q. You did not put the ‘IM’s?

A. No.

Q. It is your face mask but you did not write the ‘IM’s on it?
A. That’s right.

Q. Someone has come into your house, got your face mask and
engraved the ‘IM’ symbol on it?
A. They have engraved lots of things on it.

Q. Did you hear suspicious engraving noises at night, or anything like

that?
A. When I am home?

Undermining by extrapolation and sarcasm

2.66 This question challenges Milat’s clearly untenable assertions about
the engraving. What made this evidence so important was the fact
that Milat’s defence depended very heavily upon the assertion that
someone (and not a police officer) had planted all of this
incriminating evidence in his home. By extrapolating this assertion
to its limits, Tedeschi was able to show how flimsy it really was, yet
how Milat was prepared to embrace it all the same. The
extrapolation was intuitive — one can sense Tedeschi feeling and
probing gingerly with each question and response until he has
achieved a position he can work with. Milat’s refusal to admit to
having done any of the engraving on the paintball mask was simply
not believable; perhaps he did not want to admit to having engraved
the word ‘die’ and the skull and crossbones. The use of sarcasm by
the cross-examiner here was

[page 91]

appropriate, but, as noted above37 this must be used sparingly. It

was an effective way to finish this passage of the cross-examination,
before moving on to the next topic.

Q. Yes.
A. No.

Q. I suggest to you this Browning pistol was in your home, to your

knowledge, at the time the police came on 22 May 1994.
A. No.

Exploring and probing a plausible theory arising from the

evidence
2.67 Tedeschi here commences a theme aimed at showing Milat was the
person who had hidden the various guns and gun parts found in his
house by police. Police involved in the ‘stake out’ of the house on the
morning of Milat’s arrest had given evidence of hearing a car door
open and shut twice inside the garage in the time between police
phoning Milat, to tell him to come out, and when he eventually came
out some 13 minutes later. Tedeschi had a theory that Milat may
have hurriedly hidden the Browning pistol under the washing
machine in that time, having retrieved it from the car. The Crown
case asserted that Milat was a person who would often keep a pistol
or revolver in his car. Tedeschi also develops the theme further by
establishing that Milat had sufficient knowledge of ballistics to know
how gun parts could incriminate someone, so suggesting a motive
on Milat’s part to hide them or get rid of them, particularly after he
had become aware from media reports that police investigating the
Belanglo State Forest murders were looking for a Ruger that might
be connected with ballistics evidence found in the forest.

Q. Was it in your car underneath the front driver’s seat, and were you
worried the police would discover it, therefore you went to your
car, retrieved it and tried to hide it underneath the washing
machine?
A. I never went to my car on that morning.

Q. I suggest you did go to your car on that morning and opened it

and closed it?
A. I didn’t.

Q. If you had had a pistol in the car and you knew that the police
were coming, you would want to hide it, wouldn’t you?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Well, you were trying to keep your illegal guns from the police,
weren’t you?
A. Yes.

[page 92]

Q. The possession of this would be the possession of an illegal gun,

wouldn’t it?
A. Definitely.

Q. If this was in your house, to your knowledge, at the time the police
came you would have wanted to hide it, wouldn’t you?
A. I would imagine I would, yes.

Q. I suggest to you that is exactly what you did do when the police
came on 22 May?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. The manual for the Ruger 10/22, did you bring it to your home at
 [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. I most probably say I did.

Q. You brought it from Guildford to [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?

A. If I brought it over there, yes.

Q. You have told us that you think that someone has come into your
home and planted all these items at your home at [XXXXXXXX]
Street [Eagle Vale]. The fact of the matter is no barrel for a 22
Ruger was found at your home, was it?
A. I haven’t heard of one, no.

Q. What you are saying is somebody has come to your home and
planted all those items but not planted the most important part of
the weapon for tracing bullets, namely, the barrel. That is what you
are saying, isn’t it?
A. No, I’m not saying that.

Q. Did you know in 1994 that bullets get rifling marks on them from
being fired through a barrel?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you know there were ways in which those rifling marks could
be distinguished according to which rifle had fired the bullets?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you know one way the police had of tracing bullets to a
particular firearm was by comparing those rifling marks?
A. Yes.
Breaking the golden rule of cross-examination is sometimes
appropriate
2.68 It is often said that the cross-examiner should never ask a question
that he or she does not know the answer to. This is sensible in
theory, but in practice the occasion sometimes arises where the
cross-examiner wants to pursue a hunch and does not know what
answer will be given. It is appropriate to proceed with such a
question only in two situations: first, if it is crucial to obtain an
answer

[page 93]

to the question as the case will otherwise fail (this will be extremely
rare as no prosecution case should be so flimsy); and second, if
regardless of what the answer is it can do no harm (that is, there is
‘nothing to lose’). Tedeschi’s question here is an example of the
latter, and the hunch paid off with an affirmative answer from the
witness. The question was an important one to affirm a possible
motivation to hide the Ruger bolt and the rifle barrel. Tedeschi’s
hunch here was intuitively sound — given Milat’s obvious
experience and interest in firearms it would have been odd if he had
no knowledge of elementary ballistics.

Q. At that time in 1994, were you aware that the police in the
Belanglo forest murders case were looking for a Ruger 10/22 --
A. Yes.

Q. I am sorry, I withdraw that. Were you aware in May 1994 that the
police investigating the Belanglo forest murders were looking for a
 Ruger?
A. Yes.

Q. You had read that in the papers?

A. Read it, heard it, yes.

Q. It was open knowledge, wasn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew from the publicity that the police were claiming to have
a way of linking ballistic items found in the forest back to a rifle, if
they could find it?
A. Yes.

Q. At that time did you know that the police ballistics experts could
trace a firearm from the bolt?38
A. From the what?

Q. From the bolt?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know that the police could trace a firearm from chamber
marks?
A. Not particularly.

Q. You see, I suggest to you that you placed the Ruger parts in the
wall cavity?
A. No, I didn’t.

[page 94]

Q. I suggest to you that you got rid of the barrel of that Ruger 10/22
because you had heard or read that the police had found ballistics
material in the forest?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. I suggest to you that you hid those Ruger parts in the wall cavity for
it would be highly unlikely anybody would ever find them?
A. I never hid anything there.

Q. I suggest to you that when the police rang you on the morning of
22 May 1994 that you hurriedly had to hide a Ruger receiver?
A. I never hid nothing.

Q. That you hurriedly hid it in the boot in the hall cupboard?

A. No, I didn’t.

Q. That you hurriedly hid the Browning pistol because it was a

prohibited firearm?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. I suggest to you that that was a weapon which you had possessed
all along?
A. The last time I seen that was 1967 — ’87.

Q. I suggest that was a weapon you saw before the police came into
 your home on the morning of 22 May 1994?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. I suggest to you that you knew perfectly well that the other Ruger
parts were in your house, namely, the butt plate39 and the broken
barrel bands, or band?
A. I had an idea the butt plate was there, yes.

Q. And the barrel band?40

A. No, it could have been there but I didn’t know it was there.

Q. I suggest to you nobody planted any of those items in your home

but you placed each of those items in your home in the place
where it was found?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. I suggest to you that the single fired cartridge case found in the
plastic bag in bedroom 4, was a cartridge case you had put in
there.41
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. You had ammunition in that plastic bag on the bed, didn’t you?
A. I don’t know whether I had — what I had in that plastic bag.

[page 95]

Q. You know that the plastic bag that was on the bed had ammunition
in it?
A. I have seen the plastic bag tendered here, yes.
Q. That was your ammunition?
A. I would agree it is, yes.

Q. I suggest to you that the fired cartridge case was in that bag
because you put it there?
A. I imagine the ammo would have been on the dresser. I couldn’t see
that it would be just on the bed.

Q. You yourself have a habit of wrapping your bolts in material?

A. In wrapping up bolts?

Q. Wrapping up rifle bolts in pieces of material?

A. I don’t know whether it is a habit.

The significance of the seemingly insignificant; attention to

detail; cloths and rags
2.69 Painstaking comparisons of the many photographs taken by police
with cloth items found had revealed some important connections.
Milat had many rags. Some were wrapped around guns or gun parts
— no doubt to protect them. Some were found in a large commercial
bag of rags in his garage. A number of them had been cut and/or
torn in a way shown to be consistent with having come from a
commercial rag supplier. There were similarities between some of
these rags and some rags which had been found used as gags or
blindfolds on some of victims in the forest. (Compare, for example,
Photo 20 showing one of the pieces of shirt cloth used as part of a
gag upon the victim Walters, and Photo 4 showing a piece of a shirt
in which the Ruger bolt, found in the wall cavity, was wrapped —
note how in each case the collar has been removed and the shirt
cloth is a shoulder portion of a shirt). There was a checked piece of
 rag from a shirt, wrapped around the bolt of the Anschutz rifle.42
The bolt was found inside the canvass bag in the alcove at Walter’s
home at Hilltop, that had the name ‘Ivan’ written inside the bag’s
flap. Ballistics evidence had established that the Anschutz rifle43 had
been fired at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder site, apparently
having been used to shoot at bottles and other targets in Area A,
where a number of fired cartridge cases were located. The checked
rag pattern was rather complex and perfectly matched the pattern of
a shirt rag found in bedroom 4 in Milat’s home at Eagle Vale,
apparently used in conjunction with the model paints it was found
with.44 The clear inference was that they were pieces of rag from the
same shirt. In this way a further important link was made between
Milat and the Anschutz rifle. Tedeschi’s questions occur in an
important order, to establish that Milat used rags in this way, before
confronting him with the fact that the Ruger bolt was found
wrapped in such a rag.

[page 96]

Q. The rifle bolt in the locker at Guildford was wrapped up in a piece

of material, wasn’t it?
A. Yes.

Q. The Anschutz rifle bolt was wrapped up in a piece of material at

Hilltop, wasn’t it?
A. I believe it is so, yes.

Q. You wrapped up both of those, didn’t you?

A. No.
Q. Well, certainly the bolt in the locker was yours?
A. That’s correct.

Q. The Anschutz was yours, wasn’t it?

A. No.

Q. Has the Anschutz ever been yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen a piece of material that was wrapped around the
Ruger bolt --
A. No, I haven’t. I have seen it here in court.

Q. You have seen it here in court.

A. Yes.

Q. That is the kind of material you used to wrap things up in, in

particular, rifle parts?
A. I used rags.

Q. You would use rags like that to wrap up rifle parts?

A. I suppose I did, yes.

Q. What you say — and correct me if I am wrong — someone has

not only gone to the trouble of getting into your house, switching
off the alarm, getting up through your manhole into the roof space
and deposited Ruger parts down through the wall cavity —
somebody not only has gone to the trouble of painting camouflage
on the trigger mechanism in the wall cavity in the same colours, or
similar colours as other items of yours, but someone has gone to
 the trouble of wrapping up bolts in material similar to what you
wrap up rifle parts in, is that what you say?
A. No.

Stringing together doubtful assertions made by the witness

2.70 Here we see the cross-examiner summarising a series of unlikely
propositions maintained by the witness, to emphasise how unlikely
it is that the newly-introduced proposition made (namely, Milat’s
denial that he had wrapped the Anschutz bolt in a piece of checked
shirt material) would be true. The technique of stringing together
and accumulating items of evidence previously given is

[page 97]

very effectively used here to add emphasis, and to remind the jury of
the witness’s previous doubtful assertions. Such questions anticipate
the cross-examiner’s closing address.

Q. Well, which part do you disagree with?

A. I don’t know what — I sit here and see rags. I don’t know if they
are similar. They are rags, as far as I am concerned.

Q. You have heard evidence of those parts being found in the wall
cavity and the bolt was wrapped up in a piece of material.
(Crown Prosecutor granted access to exhibit EV.)
Is that right? See this piece of shirt material?45 You have seen this
before, haven’t you, these two pieces of material (shown). You
have seen that, haven’t you?
A. I have seen it here, yes.

Q. Isn’t that the kind of material you used to wrap up other rifle parts
in, that sort of material?
A. Rags, yes.

Q. Rags like that?

A. I don’t know whether they are like that or not.

Q. Rags made out of shirt material?

A. Whatever the rags are made out of.

Q. Including shirt material.

A. I don’t know.

Q. Well, there was the bolt in the locker wrapped up in --

A. A bit of rag.

Q. What sort of rag?

A. Just a bit of rag that I got out of the garage.

Q. A piece of shirt material?

A. I haven’t got a clue.

Q. Might it have been shirt rag?

A. I couldn’t say that.
(Crown Prosecutor granted access to exhibit JA)

[page 98]
Q. Do you agree that from time to time you wrapped up rifle parts in
shirt material?
A. I wrapped up rifle parts in rag — whether that is a shirt or not, I
don’t know.

Q. Have a look at exhibit JA (shown). Do you agree that is a piece of

shirt?46
A. Yes.

Q. You agree it is a piece of shirt?

A. Well, it is a piece of something you wear, anyway.

Q. Did you cut it?

A. No.

Q. Did you get it like this?

A. I haven’t seen it before.

Q. You haven’t seen it before?

A. No, it’s just a bit of rag to me.

Q. Did you wrap up the rifle parts in the grey locker at [XXXXXXXX
XXXX] Road, Guildford, in this piece of green shirt material?
A. I would have to say I would have wrapped something up —
whether with that rag, I don’t remember.

Making use of undisputed items — the contents of Milat’s

grey locker at Guildford
2.71 When police searched the house at Guildford where Milat’s mother
 resided still and where Milat had resided at the time of the murders,
they found a grey locker47 which Milat did not dispute was his, and
which he kept locked and to which he alone had access. Inside police
found a number of firearms and also a rifle bolt wrapped in green-
coloured shirt material. Milat eventually agrees with the cross-
examiner that he has wrapped the bolt in this way. By pressing this
issue, the cross-examiner’s aim is to suggest that the Anschutz bolt,
similarly wrapped in a shirt rag, was also Milat’s. Nevertheless, Milat
maintains that the only rifle bolt he wrapped up in this way was the
one found in the locker.

Q. You do not dispute you wrapped it in this material?

A. If you are telling me I did — if it was found in there, I suppose I
did.

Q. You have heard the evidence that the rifle bolt in the grey locker
was found in this material. Have you seen the photographs of the
locker?
A. When you passed them around — I haven’t seen them personally.

[page 99]

Q. Do you agree you wrapped up rifle parts in shirt material like this?
A. I could have wrapped that rifle bolt. I agree with that, whatever it
is.

Q. Did you wrap up rifle bolts in material like that shirt material?
A. That bolt I had in the grey locker, I did.
Q. Did you wrap up rifle bolts in material like shirt material?
A. I only wrapped up one in the locker.

Q. You wrapped up the one in the locker in material like shirt

material?
A. Yes.

Q. So someone has not only gone into your house, gone up into the
roof space, not only dropped those parts into the roof cavity,
painted them in camouflage paint, but wrapped them in shirt
material?
A. I don’t know what they did.

Echoing and confronting

2.72 The witness having committed himself to saying that he had only
wrapped one gun bolt in a rag (the one in the grey locker), the cross-
examiner comes back to the previously asked questions about the
items hidden in the wall cavity, to great effect. This is a good
example of the technique of ‘echoing’ previous evidence to show the
accumulation of evidence that tells against the proposition being put
forward by the witness.

Q. Is that what you are saying?

A. No, I’m not — you are saying it.

Q. Did you keep rifle parts in plastic bags?

A. No, not that I can recall. I could.

Q. Did you keep ammunition in plastic bags?

A. I could.

Q. You have heard the evidence that the Ruger parts in the wall
cavity, other than the rotary Ruger48 were in a plastic bag?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this the kind of plastic bag you sometimes kept ammunition in?
(Shown)
A. I don’t really know. I could.

Q. Do you agree it is of amazing coincidence about the Ruger parts?

Do you agree?
A. Coincidence about what?

[page 100]

Q. Do you say that it is an amazing coincidence, all these features are

present around these Ruger parts in the wall cavity?
A. That what you have got in your hand now?

Q. Would you have a look at these pieces of plastic from exhibit FK

found in bedroom four? (shown) Do you see the plastic bags?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you keep ammunition in plastic bags?

A. Perhaps sometimes I did.

Q. In your house at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?

A. I probably did.
Q. Incidentally, why did you engrave the name ‘Texas’ on the black
powder revolver?49
A. To tell them apart from others like it.

Q. Why ‘Texas’ rather than your name?

A. It’s an illegal weapon. I’m not going to write my name on
something I really shouldn’t have.

Q. I would like to take you to the High Sierra back pack,50 exhibit
GZ, and the yellow canvas haversack,51 exhibit HH. You have told
us that you heard that the police were making inquiries at your
work, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Who did you hear that from?

A. Me workmates who the police had talked to.

Q. Who were they?

A. One was Garry De Silva, Noel Wild, Donny Borthwick.

Q. Did they all tell you the police had been inquiring about you?
A. Asking what sort of guns I had.

Q. What sort of guns you had?

A. Yes.

Q. So you became concerned about the police coming to your home

and finding those guns?
A. Yes, so to speak.
 [page 101]

Q. You say that was around Christmas 1993?

A. That’s right.

Q. You have told us you were worried about the security of your guns
up in your roof space?
A. I wasn’t, Shirley was.

Q. What was Shirley concerned about?

A. Actually, she was more concerned if there was a fire or explosions,
or something, you know, when she seen how much I had.

Q. Did she know you had guns there?

A. Yes.

Q. How was she aware of that?

A. I imagine she would have seen them whenever she was up there.

Q. Did Shirley go up in the roof space?

A. I imagine, when we had a problem with the door.

Q. You had a problem with the door?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see her up there?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Did you ever see her going up there?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever tell her what you had up there?

A. She knew I had guns up there and other stuff.

Q. You told her you had guns up there?

A. Yes, guns and ammunition.

Q. Guns and ammunition?

A. Yes.

Q. I suggest to you, you never told Shirley you had guns up there?
A. I did.

Q. What you did was you moved all your illegal guns to the alcove at
your brother Wally’s, right?
A. Right.

Q. Now, at your place at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] the guns

were put in the roof space and there was a burglar alarm
protecting them?
A. There was a burglar alarm in the house, yes.

[page 102]

Q. To get up into the roof space you had, firstly, to break into the
house and then go up through the manhole?
A. If you’re breaking into the place I imagine that’s what you do, yes.
Q. That’s the only way of getting in to where those guns were?
A. That’s the only way I could get up through the manhole.

Q. At Walter’s place there was no burglar alarm?

A. I’m not aware of one, no.

Q. There was no burglar alarm as far as you knew, was there?

A. I didn’t know at all but I didn’t think there was one there.

Q. And access to that area under the house was from outside, wasn’t
it?
A. Yes.

Q. So one didn’t have to break into the house to get access to the
alcove where you stored those guns?
A. Into whose?

Q. One did not have to break in to Walter’s house in order to get to

the alcove where you stored the guns, is that right?
A. No

Q. You only had to break in from outside underneath the house, right?
A. Well I suppose so, yes.

Q. Was there a padlocked door?

A. I’m not sure what sort of security he had there.

Q. What size block does he live on. Is it --

A. A couple of acres I think.
Q. A couple of acres?
A. Yes.

Q. So he is still further away from neighbours than you are?

A. He had a house right next door on both sides of him.

Q. If he had a couple of acres he would be a lot further away from his

neighbours than you were, wouldn’t he?
A. Oh yes.

Q. Is this the case, it was a bush block?

A. He has a lot of bush on his ground, yes.

Q. There is a lot of bush around his house?

A. Yes.

[page 103]

Q. So when he is away it would be a lot easier for someone to break

in underneath his house than it would be to break into your house
at [XXXXXXXX] Street, Eagle Vale, wouldn’t it?
A. I would not have a clue.

Q. See, what I suggest to you is the security of the weapons played no

part at all in your decision to move them from [XXXXXXXX] Street
[Eagle Vale] to [XXXXXX] Drive, Hilltop. What do you say to that?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree with what I say?

A. Why I moved them over there?

Q. Yes.
A. I moved them over there because I knew they would be more
secure.

Q. I am suggesting they were not more secure at your brother

Walter’s than they were at your place, in fact they were
considerably less secure?
A. I had more of a chance of tradesmen coming into my place than
coming into Wally’s.

Q. Do you know what tradesmen Walter was going to get into his
house?
A. He probably would not get any, no.

Q. Do you know?
A. No, I wouldn’t have a clue.

Q. You would not have a clue. I suggest to you the security at Walter’s
place was nowhere near as good as the security at your place?
A. I could not answer that.

Q. For somebody to unload guns at your place from up in the roof

space they would have to lower them down through the manhole,
wouldn’t they?
A. If you take a rifle, yes.

Q. And they would have to get through the burglar alarm, past the
burglar alarm?
A. Yes.

Q. Whereas at Walter’s place all they needed to do was break open

that door, walk in and walk out, right?
A. I would not have a clue how they would do it.

Q. I suggest to you the security at Walter’s place was not as good as

at your place?
A. I’ve never heard of anyone around Wally’s area getting broken
into.

Q. (Witness shown exhibit NE. Counsel approached.) Mr Milat, do

you remember I was asking you about rags. Now at the top of this
page is the rag from around the Anschutz bolt, right?
A. You’re telling me, yes. Yes I will agree to that.

[page 104]

Counsel approaching
2.73 Tedeschi again uses the approach effectively to bring home the point
he is making. Some exhibits are so important that they warrant
approaching the witness box to show them to the witness, and then
have the witness describe, often in detail, what they see. Tedeschi’s
approach here was rather like that of a patient teacher, taking a
student over every facet of some basic learning. It was not in the least
intimidating in style, and was all the more effective for this reason.
In an instance such as this one involving a comparison of the shirt
material wrapped around the Anschutz bolt and the photograph of
the piece of shirt found in bedroom 452 there was simply no way
 that the witness could say other than that they were identical because
the jury could see this for themselves, after evidence had been given
by police forensic officers who had taken and enlarged photographs
of the materials and compared them as identical. Nevertheless, Milat
appears to distance himself from agreeing with the self-evident fact
by saying ‘if you say so’. Many advocates make the mistake of letting
such an answer go, but Tedeschi correctly insists that the witness
look and satisfy himself that it is so, which Milat did. This is a
powerful technique that presented an important piece of evidence
dramatically through the witness’s own acknowledgement of it.

Q. At the bottom of the page is a photograph of the bed in bedroom

4 at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. Yes.

Q. Now this piece around the Anschutz bolt is part of exhibit HH

which is in front of you here?
A. Yes.

Q. Now can you see on the back of the shirt you have got a red
cross?
A. Yes.

Q. Faint white in the middle on a black background?

A. Yes.

Q. Now can you see on this one here from the bed at [XXXXXXXX]
Street [Eagle Vale] a red cross, a bit fainter in the middle and a
black background?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree that is the same sort of red cross, faint in the middle,
black background?
A. Yes.

Q. Now if you go along — we will put them in the same direction —

along this way, there are two red rectangles together?
A. Yes.

[page 105]

Q. In the next one?

A. Yes.

Q. You see here two red rectangles?

A. Yes.

Q. Now can you see on the next one there appears to be again a red
cross on a black background. You have got a red cross on a black
background and then two red squares and a red cross on a black
background?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s the same on this shirt here?

A. Very similar, yes.

Q. If you go to the next one, two red boxes, one red box, two red
 boxes, one red box, right? can you see that?
A. I can’t really see it, but I’m accepting your word.

Q. Well, can you see two red boxes together?

A. Yes.

Q. And one?
A. Yes.

Q. Then two?
A. Yes.

Q. Then one?
A. Yes.

Q. And you can even go further on — two, one, two, one, two, one?
A. Yes.

Q. This is on the next line down from the black square, right?
A. Yes.

Q. Now we look at this one. Can you see? Have a look — two, one,
two, one, can you see that?
A. You’re telling me, I believe you.

Q. No, I want you to have a look — two, one, two, one. Can you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree it’s there?
A. Two, one, two, one, yes.

[page 106]

Q. And when you have the one square on that line, can you see that
there is a different sort of red in the middle?
A. Oh, I can’t really.

Q. Have a look?
A. I agree with you.

Q. You agree with me?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you see the same thing here?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you see where there are two boxes there appears to be a
faint white down the middle?
A. Yes.

Q. There appears to be something down the middle?

A. Just like this.

Q. Same sort of criss-cross?

A. It’s the --

Q. The same pattern as this, isn’t it?

A. Like that and that.

Q. Yes, the same pattern, isn’t it?

A. It could be.

Q. Can you see any differences?

A. I can see a lot of — just looking at this and looking at that.
Possibly, if you had that area of rag here, then it might be all right.

Q. But do you see similarities in the pattern?

A. I accept — because I’ve heard these people telling me that it is —
so I’d accept it.

Q. That photograph was taken of the bed in bedroom number 4. Do

you know what that piece of material was?
A. It looks like a shirt.

Q. And I think you have told us it might have been your shirt?
A. Did I say that?

Q. Didn’t you say that you used to have red check shirts?
A. I’ve had red check shirts. Whether that one was mine --

[page 107]

Q. If you had seen some red check material on the bed in bedroom 4
that wasn’t yours, would you have wondered how it got there?
A. I’d just think it was a bit of rag.
Q. Did you put the red check material on to the bed in bedroom 4?
A. I don’t know whether I did or not.

Q. Do you think that might be something that someone has just come
in and deposited there?
A. It could be.

Q. So someone has come in and just thrown a piece of rag on the

bed, that’s a possibility?
A. Possibly, if you say so.

Q. Do you think it is more likely that it is a piece of shirt material of

yours that you have left on the bed?
A. I don’t at all recall ever having — my shirt?

Q. Yes, or do you think there is a possibility that it may have been a

shirt of yours?
A. Oh, a possibility. I seriously doubt it but.

Q. Do you think it is a probability that it is a shirt of yours?

A. I can’t ever recall --

Q. You can’t recall what?

A. Ripping up a shirt or anything.

Q. Do your recall having a shirt like that?

A. I’ve had something similar, yes.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury how a piece of red check material which looks like part
 of a shirt would come to be on the bed in the fourth bedroom of
your home at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. I’d imagine it’s just a bit of rag that, if I put it there I would have
got it out of the garage or somewhere and put it there.

Creating impact — asking the witness for an explanation to

the jury
2.74 As noted previously, the cross-examiner should not ask for an
explanation to the jury unless there is no possible reasonable
explanation. This question is used four times in quick succession
here, and on each occasion there is no reasonable explanation
forthcoming. This creates impact and emphasis and closely engages
the jury.

Q. So you might have put it there?

A. There’s a good chance of it, yes.

[page 108]

Q. Do you acknowledge that the same patterned material was

wrapped around the Anschutz bolt underneath your brother
Walter’s home?
A. The same piece?

Q. A piece of material, this one that I have just shown you, with
exactly the same pattern, was found around the Anschutz bolt
under your brother Walter’s home?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Yes.

Q. And have you got any explanation to give to the jury how the
same patterned material would be in the fourth bedroom at
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] around the Anschutz bolt, at your
brother’s home?
A. No.

Q. Well, did you wrap the piece of material, part of exhibit HH,
around the Anschutz bolt?
A. No.

Q. So what explanation can you give the jury how a piece of material
this pattern, the same, has come to be wrapped around the
Anschutz bolt?
A. I can’t give them any.

A focusing question
2.75 This last question neatly rounds off the point being made, for the
benefit of the jury.

Q. Do you think that someone has planted it around the Anschutz bolt?
A. Someone has wrapped it around there.

Q. Do you think someone has deliberately wrapped it around it to

implicate you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you think that’s a possibility?
A. I don’t know. I’ve got no idea.

Q. Well, have you got any explanation to give to the jury to explain
to them how that same patterned piece of material came to be
wrapped around the Anschutz bolt?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Do I take it from that that you have no explanation to give to the

jury?
A. That’s right.

Q. Well, I suggest to you that it is all part of the same shirt and that
the shirt was yours?
A. I thought I heard it described as an industrial rag.

[page 109]

Q. I suggest to you that it was part of shirt material that came from
your place?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Well, I suggest to you that you wrapped the material around the
Anschutz bolt and you put the bolt into the yellow haversack?
A. I never did.

Putting the case

2.76 Here again the cross-examiner is putting the conclusion that he will
be seeking to rely on — putting his case, in fairness, to the witness,
 and also telegraphing for the benefit of the jury what will inevitably
be a component of his closing address.

Q. Do you acknowledge that that haversack was found with your stuff
underneath Walter’s place in the alcove?
A. Well, I’ve heard evidence saying that it was in there.

Q. You are not suggesting that the police have planted it or anything
like that?
A. I wouldn’t suggest anything what the police would do.

Q. Is this the case, that you are saying that someone has gone to your
brother’s place and planted the yellow haversack with the
Anschutz bolt in amongst your property?
A. I’m not saying that at all.

Forcing a ‘turnaround’ by asking for an explanation

2.77 Milat at first denies suggesting that the yellow haversack containing
the Anschutz bolt was planted by someone among his property in
the alcove at Walter’s house. Four questions later he does a complete
turnaround and agrees that someone must have planted it. The
cross-examiner achieves this simply by asking him for an
explanation, in the expectation that he had none, and then re-
phrasing the same question and putting it again. In the end, the
witness has no option but to return to the absurd ‘planting’ theory,
because he simply has no other explanation that he is willing to offer.

Q. Well, how do you say that the yellow haversack with the Anschutz
bolt came to be with your property in the alcove?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you think someone might have planted it there?

A. Put that bag on top of my property?

Q. With your property?

A. Well, they must have because I never did it.

Q. Are you saying the same thing about the blue High Sierra day
pack — somebody has planted that in amongst your property?
A. Yes. I never did it.

[page 110]

Capitalising when the witness seeks refuge in an absurd

explanation
2.78 Certain now that the witness is unwilling to offer any explanation
except the ‘planting’ theory, the cross-examiner is able to ask
whether this is his explanation for other things, such as the location
of Schmidl’s High Sierra day pack among Milat’s property, confident
of an affirmative answer, which further compounds the absurdity of
the explanation.

Q. Well do you think that the person who planted the yellow
haversack in the alcove knew that you had this piece of material
on your bed in bedroom 4?
A. I don’t know what they knew.
Clarity of thought ‘on the run’
2.79 This remarkably simple question shows the cross-examiner’s clarity
of thought ‘on the run’ — an important skill of cross-examination —
and reveals the absurdity of Milat’s ‘planting’ theory. The question
derives from the process of assuming that the doubted answer is
true, and then extrapolating this to its logical conclusion in order to
expose the weaknesses in the answer. To make this kind of simple
connection of ideas during cross-examination (that if someone had
planted the Anschutz bolt then they may also have known that the
same shirt material as was found wrapped around the bolt was also
in an obscure box found on the bed in bedroom 4 at Milat’s home —
a highly unlikely proposition) requires a clear head and a sharp focus
on the evidence as it emerges, and making quick connections with
evidence previously given. It is a result of preparation, listening
carefully to the answers being given and recognising their
significance instantly and the potential they offer for further
questions. The question asked here serves the double purpose of not
only reminding the jury of the previous compelling evidence about
the shirt material, but also exposing the weakness of the ‘planting’
theory.

Q. The High Sierra day pack was found with the two camouflaged
magazines exhibit GZ. Would you have a look at exhibit GZ.
(Shown to witness.) (Approached.) You see these items.53

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Perhaps I might have also the two camouflaged

magazines as well, which are part of that exhibit, but they are MFI
100.54

[page 111]
Q. Firstly, this is the blue High Sierra day pack. You claim never to
have seen it?
A. That’s right.

Q. You didn’t take this from Simone Schmidl, did you?

A. I never took it from anyone.

Q. Have you had a chance to look at it?

A. I’ve seen it from sitting there, yeah.

Q. There’s no name on it, is there?

A. High Sierra.

Q. I’m sorry, the name of an owner?

A. I’m not aware of it.

Q. Now these two magazines which are part of the contents of the
High Sierra day pack, you have told us they were yours?
A. That’s right.

Q. And they belong to the SKK rifle, the camouflaged one that was
also in the alcove?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now, have you got any explanation to give to the jury how your
camouflaged magazines from your SKK rifle came to be in this
High Sierra day pack?
A. No. When I put them in — the SKKs was dismantled and
everything was put in a box. That’s as far as I know where the
magazines – that’s where I put them when I sent them over to me
 brother’s place.

Echoing
2.80 Note how the cross-examiner does not simply refer to ‘magazines’
but to ‘camouflaged magazines’. The use of the descriptive adjective
reminds the jury of the significance of these magazines being painted
camouflage — it distinctly links the item to the witness, who has
agreed to having painted many things in camouflage colours, and
this distinctive item being found in Schmidl’s day pack is highly
suggestive of the witness having put it there himself. It never hurts to
reinforce important evidence in this way when the opportunity
arises.

Q. So when you sent these magazines over to your brother’s place,

they were in a box?
A. Yes.

Q. They were not in this?

A. No.

[page 112]

Q. Do --
A. No, I haven’t seen that day pack before.

Q. So someone has got into underneath your brother’s house and has
known that these were your SKK magazines, taken them and put
them into the High Sierra day pack, is that what you say?
A. I wouldn’t have thought of saying that, but you’re saying it.

Q. No, I’m asking you, is that what you’re saying — that someone
has taken these two camouflaged magazines and put them in the
High Sierra day pack?
A. The last time I seen them they were in that — there was a brown
box. That’s where I had them with the SKKs.

Pressing for an obvious answer

2.81 Once again, Milat appears reluctant to acknowledge the implications
of his evidence, by suggesting that he ‘never would have thought of
that’, as if the implication is merely an assertion by the cross-
examiner. It seems to be a fairly transparent attempt to avoid the
inevitable implications, yet it is surprising how many cross-
examiners will not pick up on this opportunity by pressing the
question, and will pass on to something else. But here, Tedeschi
knows that it is important to bring this point home, and pursues it to
its logical conclusion, which is the answer he is seeking.

Q. You are saying you didn’t put them in this High Sierra day pack?
A. That’s correct.

Q. So someone else must have?

A. That’s correct.

Arriving at the conclusion

2.82 This last question puts the logical conclusion that the cross-
examiner is after. Having thus punctuated the finish of this topic, the
cross-examiner can now move on to the next theme.
Q. And do you think that whoever put them into the High Sierra day
pack was trying to implicate you in something?
A. I don’t know whether they were trying to implicate me or whether
they borrowed it. Whoever used that bag — I don’t know. I hadn’t
seen them for months.

Q. And the other items from the High Sierra day pack — have a look
at the torch. Is that your torch?
A. I don’t ever recall having a torch like this.

[page 113]

Probing for connections between the witness and the

incriminating item of evidence
2.83 The presence of Schmidl’s day pack among numerous items of
Milat’s property is incriminating, yet the witness insists that he has
no knowledge of the day pack whatsoever. So the cross-examiner
probes for any connection between the witness and the contents of
the day pack. Like peeling the layers of an onion, the cross-examiner
here meticulously goes through the contents, item by item, confident
that the position stubbornly maintained by the witness will
increasingly be seen to be unsustainable.

Q. Not yours?
A. I would say it’s not mine, no.

Q. Is this yours — some socks?

A. Normally — it’s a sock. That’s about all I can say.

Q. What — so it’s yours?

A. No.

Q. What about these advertisements for property?

A. Well, I don’t own them at all.

Q. So what — somebody has gone to the trouble of tearing out some

advertisements for properties in the country and putting them into
the High Sierra day pack?
A. I don’t know what they’ve done, what did they have in mind.

Q. You did not put them in the High Sierra day pack?
A. No, I haven’t seen them property before, or whatever it is.

Q. There is an advertisement for a 30-acre property, $7,500 full

price, ideal grazing or roomy weekender fishing or swimming with
a lake nearby and handy to the town?
A. I’ve never heard of that description before.

Q. Never heard of it. Is this yours (indicated.)

A. No idea.

HIS HONOUR: I am sorry, what is it?

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. It is a tea towel?

A. I’ve had tea towels in my place.

Q. Like this one?

A. A tea towel is a tea towel. I never really got too much into it.
Q. The only matter you can say is yours is the camouflage magazines,
is that right?
A. That’s correct.

[page 114]

Q. If we had not of found the Harley Davidson motor bike pictures you
would have denied those, wouldn’t you?
A. No way.

Suggesting that the witness’s answer was borne of necessity

2.84 The witness seems keen to distance himself from Schmidl’s High
Sierra day pack. The only items of the many found inside it that
Milat will admit ownership of are the SKK magazines. Tedeschi’s
question, in effect, inquires whether the reason that Milat admits
ownership of these is because he knows that the Crown can prove
this anyway since the SKK rifle and magazine can be seen in a
photograph found in his home, in which these items are pictured
with a number of other weapons, leaning against his Harley-
Davidson motorcycle. This is a forceful way of undermining the
position being taken by the witness. It is not appropriate with every
witness, but it certainly was an appropriate approach here, in view of
the way that Milat had been answering questions.

Q. The only reason you have admitted to the magazines is because

we have photographs showing the magazine and the SKK rifle
leaning up against your Harley Davidson motor bike, isn’t it?
A. No. I just — I’m not disputing the fact them SKKs are mine,
whether you showed me the Harley Davidson or not.
Q. Did you ever go away with Walter looking for property?
A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go?

A. Up Mudgee.

Q. Did you go to properties like those described there?

A. No.

Q. Now, also in the High Sierra day pack there were four full moon
cartridge clips each loaded with six cartridges, right? Can you see
them there, part of exhibit GZ?55
A. I’ve seen them entered, yes.

Q. (Counsel approached.) You see them in there (indicated.) You see

them there?
A. Yes.

[page 115]

Q. Now do you agree that those are exactly the same kind of
cartridge clips or full moon clips that you had in your Jackeroo?56
A. They are the same type that was found in there, yes.

Getting the witness to admit unavoidable/patent truths

2.85 This technique is simple but effective. The witness must answer the
question in the affirmative — he must concede the link up of these
pieces of circumstantial evidence; to deny them would be an obvious
 lie. Tedeschi repeats this process by following through with other
items found in the High Sierra day pack which are identical to items
possessed by Milat at his home; namely, three named brands of
ammunition. Observe how these circumstances are combined in the
series of questions that follow, leading to the climactic denouement
several questions later, where Tedeschi asks Milat to offer some
explanation to the jury.

Q. The same type you had in there, in the Jackeroo?

A. I heard they were found in there but I can’t ever recall actually
having them in the Jackeroo at that time.

Q. Do you agree that the 24 cartridges there are Winchester, PMC

and Norma brands of cartridges. Just have a look?
A. Well --

Q. Do you agree that they are those — you have heard evidence of
those?
A. Yeah, I accept that.

Q. You accept that?

A. I have trouble seeing things.

Q. Do you agree in your home at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] in

the fourth bedroom and in the garage there was three types of 45
calibre cartridges, namely Winchester, PMC and Norma?
A. Yes, those brands are familiar to me.

Q. Are you saying it is just sheer coincidence that the contents of the
High Sierra day pack contained your two SKK magazines, exactly
 the same sort of full moon adaptors, full moon clips as you had in
your Jackeroo, and exactly the same brands of calibre of
ammunition that you had at your home in [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale]. Are you saying that is sheer coincidence?
A. No. I’m sure it is the same, my brand of ammo would have got
sent over to Wally’s place.

[page 116]

Sharpening focus and ‘planting a flag’ for the jury, by

parceling items of evidence
2.86 This last question neatly summarises a parcel of items of evidence
which, when so parceled in combination, powerfully implicates the
witness as having had the High Sierra day pack in his possession.
The question sharply focuses on the point the cross-examiner wants
the jury to see — that the presence of these items cannot be sheer co-
incidence, but rather, implicates the witness. The question
anticipates a submission that the cross-examiner is likely to make in
address. For emphasis, the cross-examiner then proceeds again, in
the questions that follow, to go through the items and how they are
linked to the witness.

Q. What I am suggesting to you is that you put that stuff into the High
Sierra day pack?
A. I know what you are suggesting but you are wrong.

Q. I suggest you moved the High Sierra day pack with all the other
gear that you moved from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] to the
alcove at [XXXXXX] Drive [Hilltop]?
A. No I never did that.

Q. You have agreed that the High Sierra day pack contained your
magazines, two SKK magazines?
A. I’m not personally aware of that, no.

Q. Do you agree from hearing the evidence that those two magazines
were found in the High Sierra day pack?
A. Yes, I have heard evidence like that, yes.

Q. And you have agreed they are yours?

A. Yes.

Q. You have heard evidence that full moon clips were found in the
High Sierra day pack?
A. I did hear that, yes.

Q. You have agreed they are exactly the same kind found in your
Jackeroo?
A. Yes.

Q. You have heard the evidence that there was Winchester, PMC and
Norma brands of cartridges found in the High Sierra day pack?
A. I’ve heard that, yes.

Q. You agree exactly the same sort of cartridges, exactly the same
sort of brands of cartridges were found at your home?
A. Yes.
 [page 117]

Q. Do you have any explanation to give to the ladies and gentlemen

of the jury why there is that incredible coincidence of all of those
items apart from you having put them in the High Sierra day pack?
A. I can’t tell them anything, no. What am I going to say to them?

The ‘focusing’ and ‘flag-planting’ question

2.87 This last question and answer is the conclusion the cross-examiner
wants the jury to make from the preceding line of questions; namely,
that the witness has no satisfactory explanation. It will no doubt be
referred to in address and the jury, when they hear the address, will
remember this point in the evidence because of the way the cross-
examiner has flagged it with this focusing question.

Q. Do you have one explanation to give to the jury for any of those
coincidences apart from you putting those items in the High Sierra
day pack?
A. Well obviously somebody is trying to make me look real bad.

The climactic question

2.88 Having carefully laid the groundwork, the cross-examiner is able to
confidently challenge the witness to offer the jury any single
explanation for the string of coincidences referred to. The use of the
word ‘jury’ punctuates this question for the jury as a significant one
and the weak answer given is very telling. Tedeschi continues with
‘follow through’ questions that draw together previous evidence in
order to elaborate the absurdity of the position being maintained by
 the witness. Note how the cross-examiner presses the witness about
the doings of the imagined ‘person’ who Milat alleges has been
planting evidence against him. This continues for the next few pages
of transcript. This is very skillful advocacy.

Q. The same person who has put the stuff in your wall cavity?
A. I’m not saying it is the same person who put the stuff in the wall
cavity.

Q. Somebody is trying to make you look bad?

A. That’s the only thing I can say of it.

Q. Somebody who knows you have Winchester, PMC and Norma

brands of ammunition in your home. Is that what you are saying?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Somebody who knows that you have full moon clips in your car, is
that what you are saying?
A. Yes.

Q. Someone who knows that you have those camouflage coloured

SKK magazines, is that what you are saying?
A. Yes.

[page 118]

Q. And is what you are saying that that person somehow got access
to underneath Walter’s place to plant this stuff with your property
in the alcove. Is that what you are saying?
A. A lot of people had access to Walter’s place --

Q. Is that what you are saying?

A. No, I’m not saying that.

Q. Are you saying somebody got access to underneath Walter’s place

and planted that stuff in your property?
A. I’m saying the magazines were left in that box.

Q. Just listen to my question. Are you saying that somebody got

access to underneath Walter’s place to plant that stuff in your
property in the alcove?
A. Yes.

Preventing straying
2.89 ‘Just listen to my question’ is a good example of bringing the straying
witness back to the question that has been asked — and getting the
answer expected.

Q. Now I suggest to you that that is manifestly absurd. What do you

say to that?
A. I don’t think so.

Q. I suggest to you that you moved the High Sierra day pack and its
contents to the alcove?
A. I’ve never seen that High Sierra day pack before.

Q. Let us have a look at the yellow haversack (shown exhibit HH.) You
have heard evidence about the Anschutz bolt wrapped up in a
 piece of material being found in this haversack?
A. Yes.

Dealing with related and similar items of evidence in series,

using the same approach for each
2.90 Having dealt with Schmidl’s High Sierra day pack, Tedeschi moves
on to another pack also located in the alcove — in this case, the
haversack with the name ‘Ivan’ written on it.57 His series of
questions will follow the same theme and course as did his questions
about the High Sierra day pack. Having effectively demonstrated the
overwhelming circumstances connecting the witness to the High
Sierra day pack, Tedeschi now proceeds to do the same thing in
relation to the haversack. The use of the same approach on two
different items creates a powerful effect by demonstrating that the
witness is giving the same kind of hard to believe answers for each
item.

[page 119]

Q. Now what you say is someone is trying to make it much easier for
the police by writing the name ‘Ivan’ on it. Is that what you are
saying?
A. I’m not saying made it easier for the police.

Q. If somebody is trying to implicate you by writing the name ‘Ivan’

on this haversack --
A. I could think that, yes.

Q. And someone has also gone to the trouble of putting a whole lot of
 ammunition in here. Is any of this yours, is that yours (indicated.)
A. I’ve seen that before, yes.

Q. Is it yours?
A. I don’t know whether it’s mine or not.

Q. Would you tell the court what it is?

A. I don’t know whether I’ve seen that before. I thought it was
something else.

Q. What is it?
A. I’m not sure what it is actually.

Q. Is it yours?
A. No, I can’t say it is.

Q. It appears to be like a little purse?

A. Yes.

Q. With some .22 calibre bullets inside?

A. Yes.

Q. Now would you have a look at the rest of the contents and tell us if
there is anything you recognise as being yours?
A. A quantity of ammo and a magazine, rifle magazine.

Q. Are they yours?

A. Could be. I’ve got one like this, I’ve got a couple in fact, and a
pair of pliers.
‘Light bulb’ moments
2.91 The cross-examiner has a ‘light bulb’ moment on hearing this
answer — the witness acknowledges he had a pair of pliers. See how
the cross-examiner skillfully uses this simple piece of information in
the following questions.

Q. Are they yours?

A. I really don’t know. I don’t know, I can’t tell.

[page 120]

Q. Did you keep your pliers in a piece of plastic like that?

A. No.

Q. So somebody has gone to the trouble of putting your pliers into a

piece of plastic?
A. I don’t know whether these are mine, so whoever --

Q. Might they be yours?

A. Not if they were in this bag. I couldn’t really see how they could
be.

Q. Do they look like a pair of pliers of yours?

A. No. I find it hard pressed to describe my pliers. All pliers I suppose
look the same.

Q. Do they look anything like a pair of pliers you have ever owned?
A. They look like pliers to me, that’s about it.
Q. So, you don’t recognise them at all?
A. No.

Q. So, do you think somebody might be trying to implicate you in the

possession of a nondescript pair of pliers?
A. I couldn’t imagine why I’d have a pair of pliers with anything that I
owned, unless in my toolbox.

Q. Can you imagine any reason why somebody might want to plant a
pair of pliers on you?
A. Plant on me? I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

Q. You have heard evidence the contents of that bag were found in
the bag in the alcove?
A. In this --

Q. In that bag?
A. That’s all this here?

Q. Yes, with the name ‘Ivan’ on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any reason why anybody would want to plant a

nondescript pair of pliers on you. Can you think of any reason why
anybody would want to do that?
A. I would not have a clue.

Q. Do you think they might be yours?

A. No, not if they were in this bag.
Q. What about the ammunition?
A. Well, I owned ammo like this.

[page 121]

Q. Did you have ammo like that in your yellow haversack?

A. This is not my yellow haversack.

Q. In your yellow haversack?

A. In my one?

Q. Did you have ammunition like that in your yellow haversack?

A. What yellow haversack?

Q. Mr Milat --
A. No, you have to tell me, I can’t go guessing whatever you’re trying
to say --

Q. You had a whole lot of property in the alcove?

A. Yes.

Q. If anybody wanted to plant anything on you there was tonnes of

stuff in that alcove that could have been put into the yellow
haversack?
A. This is not my haversack.

Q. Just listen to my question. Tonnes of material in that alcove of

yours, agree?
A. You are saying tonnes. Well I will go along with it, it’s not tonnes.
Q. Lots?
A. Lots, yes, yes.

Q. There was a lot of stuff there if anybody wanted to plant things on

you they could have got some of your stuff from the alcove and put
it into the yellow haversack?
A. Wouldn’t have been — it’s not my haversack.

Q. But you are saying somebody has tried to plant things on you by
putting a nondescript pair of pliers --
A. No, you’re telling me that.

Q. -- in this haversack?
A. You’re telling me that. I never suggested that at all.

Q. You say it is not your haversack?

A. No.

Q. Just that someone has written your name on it?

A. That’s right.

Q. Definitely not yours you say?

A. No.

Q. And someone has gone and done something dastardly like

planting the Anschutz bolt wrapped up in a piece of material in it.
That is what you are saying?
A. No, I’m not saying that.
 [page 122]

Q. Is that what you are telling the ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
someone has gone to the trouble of getting this Anschutz bolt
which we understand was used in one of the death scenes in the
forest, wrapping it up in a piece of material that is exactly the
same as the patterned material in your place and planting it in this
yellow haversack with your name on it. Is that what you are
saying?
A. No.

Q. What are you saying?

A. I’m saying I don’t know nothing about it.

Q. Did you put that yellow haversack in amongst your property in the
alcove?
A. No.

Q. So someone else must have?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you write the name ‘Ivan’ on it?

A. No.

Q. So someone else must have?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you put the Anschutz rifle bolt in that bag?

A. No.
Q. So someone else must have?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that that someone was trying to plant evidence on

you?
A. I don’t know. It’s not my bag so I can’t see how they’d try to plant
on me.

Q. You have heard the evidence that the Anschutz rifle was used at
one of the death scenes in the forest, haven’t you?
A. Yes.

Q. You acknowledge that you at least at one time owned that

Anschutz rifle?
A. That’s right, yes.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury how that yellow
haversack containing the Anschutz bolt and containing that piece
of material came to be in amongst your property in the alcove?
A. I’ve got no explanation.

Q. Could you give the jury one single solitary explanation for how it
came to be there other than that you placed it there?
A. No. I have no idea how it got there.

Q. Do you think somebody might have planted it to try to implicate

you?
A. Somebody has put it in there definitely, yes.

[page 123]
Persistence pays off
2.92 Here Tedeschi has just gone through a series of questions where the
witness is being non-committal about how items of his came to be in
the haversack, but by persisting in the expectation that the witness
will maintain the ‘planting’ theory, he arrives at exactly that point
with the answer to this question.

Q. Is it the same person, do you think, who put the High Sierra day
pack in there?
A. Could be.

Repetition for emphasis

2.93 The witness having maintained the ‘planting’ theory, Tedeschi now
fires off a series of questions asking whether Milat contends that the
‘planter’ might be the same person who planted other items for
which Milat has adopted the ‘planting’ theory. The repetition is very
effective and highlights the incredibility of the position being
maintained by the witness. Implicit in the questions is the suggestion
that the ‘same person’ could only have been the witness himself.

Q. Is it the same person who got into your house and planted the
Ruger parts?
A. Could be.

Q. Is it the same person who put the receiver in your boot?

A. Could be.

Q. Is it the same person who put Simone Schmidl’s tent in your

 garage?
A. Could be.

Q. Is it the same person who put the two sleeping bags in Shirley’s
bedroom at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. Could be. I don’t know nothing about it.

Q. Is it the same person who put the cook set in the kitchen at
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?58
A. I don’t know.

Q. Is it the same person who put the camera in the kitchen?

A. The camera has always been in our kitchen, so to speak.

[page 124]

Q. Do you think this same person has done the dastardly act of
planting an innocuous pair of pliers in your yellow haversack?
A. I don’t know.

Q. You think that might be yours, that magazine?

A. I’ve got similar ones, yes.

Q. There is a whole lot of those 45s?

A. Yes.

Q. They are empty cartridge cases?

A. That’s right.
Q. Are they yours?
A. I don’t really know. I’ve had a lot of empty 45 cartridge cases.

Q. Incidentally, the cartridges in the blue High Sierra day pack are
copper tipped, are they not?
A. Yes.

Engaging the jurors by leaving it to them to make

connections
2.94 Copper-tipped bullets were found in the High Sierra day pack and
also in Milat’s home. In his evidence, the Crown witness Paul
Onions had described the bullets in the revolver pointed at him by
the man ‘Bill’ as copper;59 this connection is made by the cross-
examiner without even mentioning Onions. Sometimes it is more
effective to let the jury make their own connections — by not saying
the obvious you can, in effect, show the jurors that you respect their
capacity to see the obvious. It invites the jury to join with the cross-
examiner’s line of thought; to ‘go with the cross-examiner’ as it were.
This is a proper and effective communication technique that is well
employed here.

Q. And the 45 cartridges found at your place at [XXXXXXXX] Street

[Eagle Vale] are also copper tipped, aren’t they?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this the case, that in the bedroom number 4 at [XXXXXXXX] Street

[Eagle Vale] there was one unfired cartridge case and one fired
cartridge case being 45 calibre, is that right?
A. They tell me.
Q. Found by the police. You have heard that evidence?
A. Yes, yes.

[page 125]

Q. You do not dispute they were found in bedroom 4?

A. No.

Q. And they also were copper tipped, I am sorry, the unfired one was
also copper tipped?
A. I don’t dispute that.

Q. And also found in bedroom 4 in the plastic bag, the same plastic
bag that had the fired 22 cartridge case was some 45 calibre
ammunition that was also copper tipped. Do you dispute that?
A. No.

Q. Amazing coincidences, aren’t they, Mr Milat? Do you agree?

A. Oh well, yes I suppose so.

Confronting the witness

2.95 This is a good example of not only confronting the witness with the
force of the evidence, but also of obtaining the witness’s
acknowledgment of its force.

Q. Now would you have a look Mr Milat at this photograph I show

you (shown exhibit BL.) It is in folder 7, tab C, page 23, shows the
water bottle on the bed. You see that water bottle there?
A. Yes.

Insinuating through probing that the witness had knowledge

of an important incriminating item
2.96 The water bottle was found in bedroom 4 at Milat’s home in a box
among some model paints and other items.60 When police
examined it under the ‘Polylight’ technique, and photographed it,
the name ‘Simi’ could be clearly seen.61 The bottle had been Simone
Schmidl’s and someone had attempted to scratch her name off the
bottle. The name was invisible to the naked eye. This was a powerful
piece of evidence. Milat denied ever having seen it, an absurd stance
for him to take given where it was found. The cross-examiner
presses this point home by exploring how often Milat used the room.

Q. You see there is a box called a F15E Seymour Johnson next to it?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. That is a model plane kit, isn’t it?

A. That’s right.

[page 126]

Q. Is that your model plane kit box?

A. Yes.

Q. You have told us that you were into models and painting models
camouflage colours?
A. That’s right.
Q. And is that your scope that is in the box?
A. Yes.

Q. Are these your gloves in the box?

A. That’s right.

Q. In fact are all those your items in the box?

A. Yes.

Q. Evidence has been given that that water bottle was also found in
the same box. Do you remember seeing that water bottle?
A. In court here?

Q. No, in that box at your home?

A. No.

Q. Never saw it?

A. That’s right.

Q. How often did you go into bedroom 4?

A. Quite often I would say.

Q. Every day?
A. I would not say I went in there every day, but every now and
again.
A. Every now and then.

Q. You keep clothes in there?

A. No, it wasn’t really clothes in there.
Q. How frequently would you go in there?
A. Hard to say. About the only time — the only thing I’d really put in
there was, say, my work bag.

Q. Your work bag that you took to work every day?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, did you ever walk in there and say to yourself: oh gosh.
That’s a strange looking water bottle. I’ve never seen that before.
Did you ever think that at all?
A. If I’d seen this I would have said that.

[page 127]

Assuming this is correct, what then?

2.97 This last question is a good example of putting a proposition to the
witness as to how they might have reacted if the evidence they have
given were correct. If the witness is not being truthful, such
questions will oft en raise issues they have never thought about, and
they will struggle to deal with them coherently.

Q. You would have, wouldn’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the last time before the police came on 22 May 1994
that you walked in to that room?
A. If I walked into the house with me — my work bag, I probably
went in there that Saturday night.
Q. Saturday night?
A. Yes.

Q. And if the water bottle had been in there on the Saturday night, do
you think you would have noticed it?
A. Hard to say. I doubt if I would have. I would have only opened the
door and pushed my bag in. That would be it.

Q. That would have been the last time that you would notice the water
bottle, if it was there?
A. I never noticed the water bottle there.

Q. No, but if it had been there?

A. If?

Q. Yes, when do you think you would have noticed it?

A. How can I answer that?

Q. What I am asking you is, when was the last time you looked at the
bed?
A. I never really paid any particular attention to the bed.

Q. Did you ever look at the bed?

A. Oh, I’ve no reason really — I just put my bag in.

Q. You told us that if it had been there you would have seen it?
A. If it was stuck like that, I suppose I would have.

Q. Well, when would you have seen it?

A. I’ve got no idea.

Q. What — a week earlier, a month earlier, a year earlier — what?

A. If this water bottle was there --

[page 128]

Q. If the water bottle was there, when would you have noticed it?
A. I still can’t see how I can answer that question.

Q. Give us within a range. Would you have noticed it a few days

earlier, a week earlier, months — what — if it had been there?
A. When I walk into the house with my work bag, that’s about the
only thing that I’d go in there for, on a regular occurrence. I would
open the door, put my work bag in and that was it.

Q. Is there anything in the cupboard that you would use from time to
time that caused you to turn the light on?
A. If I went in there at night time, if I wanted something, yes.

Q. Weren’t there papers in there on the dresser — didn’t you have all
your papers in or on that dresser?
A. I had various — a lot of things in there.

Q. Didn’t you sometimes go in there because you kept all your papers
there?
A. I didn’t say that.

Q. Sorry, didn’t you sometimes go in there because you had your

 papers in there — I’m asking you?
A. Oh, I had my property in there, yes.

Q. But you had all your papers in there, didn’t you?

A. What papers?

Q. All your papers about insurance and registration and the house
and your work and things like that — and the Ruger manual, all
your papers were on that dresser and in the dresser, weren’t they?
A. No. You’re wrong.

Q. Was there anywhere else that you kept your papers in the house?
A. My personal papers, my registration papers and stuff similar to that
— I’d keep in my bedroom.

Q. When — can you say when you would have noticed the water
bottle if it had been there prior to 22 May 1994?
A. I can’t say anything about it.

Q. Can’t give us any idea at all? You can’t give us say for instance
like within a month before that: I would have gone into the room,
switched on the light, looked around and if it had been there I
would have seen it — can you give us any indication like that?
A. I believe I was in there the previous night.

Q. I’m sorry?
A. When I came home Saturday, I’m sure I would have put my work
bag in there.

[page 129]
Q. Did you put the light on?
A. I wouldn’t — I couldn’t say so. All I would have done — just
opened the door, pushed the door open.

Q. When was the last time that you went in there and put the light on?
A. I can’t really say.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury how this water
bottle came to be in the model box with a whole lot of other items
that belonged to you, on that bed?
A. I have no idea at all.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury how it came to be
in that bedroom, apart from you putting it there?
A. No, I never put it there.

Q. No idea at all?
A. No.

Q. Well, you have seen this water bottle?

A. In court here.

Q. In court.
A. Yes.

Q. You have seen it has got a patch out of it?

A. Yes, I can see the patch out of it.

Q. In the photographs there is some sticky tape around that patch to

stop it disintegrating. Have you seen that in the photographs?
A. I believe I have seen it.

Q. There is sticky tape stuck over this patch, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now if you didn’t put this in your bedroom, someone else did?
A. I agree with you.

Q. Now you have accepted that the only inference is that this was
Simone Schmidl’s water bottle, right?
A. I believe it is.

Q. And in fact underneath some scratching on the water bottle it had

got ‘Simi’ written on it?
A. That’s what they tell me, yes.

Q. You have seen the photographs of the Simi that has been brought
up with a polylight, haven’t you?
A. That’s right.

[page 130]

Q. Are you saying this was planted in your home?

A. Yes.

Q. So that whoever planted this in your home scratched out the name
Simi to make the job that much harder — is that what you’re
saying?
A. I don’t know what they did.
Undermining by pointing out absurdities
2.98 Milat maintains that someone has planted Simone Schmidl’s water
bottle in bedroom 4. Yet Tedeschi points out the absurdity of
someone planting a water bottle whose owner could only be
ascertained by the use of police ‘Polylight’ scanning.

Q. When it was put in your home it had the Simi scratched out so
whoever has attempted to plant stuff on you has scratched out the
Simi, is that right?
A. I don’t know. How would I?

Q. That is in fact what you are saying, isn’t it?

A. Well, I’d agree with what you’re saying but I wouldn’t have a clue
what they did.

Q. All you say is, you didn’t scratch the name out?
A. Yes.

Q. So someone else did?

A. Yes.

Q. You think it might be the person who put it into your fourth
bedroom?
A. I’d say that, yes.

Q. And someone has also put plastic over the patch?

A. I don’t know what they did.

Q. Why would anyone put plastic over the patch?

A. I’ve never seen it before. I don’t know what you’re talking about
really.

Q. Why would someone take out the patch for a start — why would
someone cut it out?
A. It might have had a name there. I don’t know.

Q. If someone cut it out because it had a name on it, why would they
do that? Why would they cut out the name?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Well, if it was Simone Schmidl’s and the name Simi was on it, can
you think of any reason why someone might cut the patch out?
A. I don’t — I wouldn’t have a clue.

[page 131]

Q. Can you think of any reason why someone, having cut the patch
out, would want to put sticky tape over the patch?
A. When I read about that water bottle I believe — I think it was Mrs
Murphy or something, she said she just wrapped tape around it
because it was ripped. I don’t know what was there.

Q. Mrs Murphy?
A. Or one of the ladies that was up here, that had something to do
with it.

Q. Ms Murphy gave evidence of buying an identical water bottle --

A. Where she was staying.
Q. -- to Simone Schmidl’s. That has been acknowledged as being
Simone Schmidl’s water bottle. Can you think of any reason why
someone would wrap tape around that?
A. No. The only reason I know anything about any tape --

Q. I withdraw what I said before. It wasn’t Miss Murphy, it was

Jeanette Muller who bought an identical water bottle to this one,
with Simone Schmidl in New Zealand?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Can you think of any reason why another person would put sticky
tape over a patch?
A. I have absolutely no idea.

Q. Do you think it would be less likely to come apart if there were

sticky tape around it?
A. The only reason I know there was tape around that, I read that
lady’s statement.

Q. No, but do you think that somebody might have put sticky tape on
it, to make it more useable?
A. How would I know what people are doing?

Q. Mr Milat, if you — let’s say you bought one like this at a disposal
store and you got it home and thought, oh, gosh, there’s a patch in
it — if you put sticky tape on that, that would make it more
useable, wouldn’t it?
A. I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to tell me.

Q. Mr Milat, let’s think of a story. You go to a disposal store. You pay

 over your money, buy one of these. You get it home and it has got
a patch on it just like this one, okay?
A. I don’t know what sort of patch it had on it.

Q. Just listen to me. You buy a water bottle like this. You get it home
and it’s got a patch on it like that, okay?
A. Exactly like that.

Q. Now, can you see any reason why you would put sticky tape over
it, if it had a patch?
A. No.

[page 132]

Q. Do you think it might be more useable to have a patch sticky taped

over? Do you think it might be done by way of repair?
A. How would I know what people are going to do?

Q. No, but do you think that might be something that someone would
do if they got --
A. Why would they want to buy a thing with a hole in it?

Q. Mr Milat, what I suggest to you is that you took this water bottle
from Simone Schmidl?
A. No I didn’t.

Q. That you knew perfectly well that this water bottle was in bedroom
4 at your home in [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. No I didn’t.
Q. That you scratched out the name Simi?
A. No.

Q. That you cut out the patch, probably because it had a name on it?
A. No.

Q. That you stuck sticky tape over it so that you could use it?
A. No.

Q. And I suggest to you that you know perfectly well what has
happened to this water bottle?
A. I have no idea what happened to the water bottle.

Q. Is this what you are asking the jury to accept — that someone has
got access to your home and has deposited this water bottle,
having fixed it up with sticky tape?
A. I don’t know what was on it.

Q. You have seen the photographs of the condition it was found in.
You have seen them, haven’t you?
A. I’m sitting there. I seen photos. What they actually look like, I don’t
know.

Q. Let me show you, photograph 28?

A. Why are you telling me I seen it?

Q. Behind tab C. Do you see that photograph?62

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see it has got sticky tape over the patch?

A. I could see it’s got sticky tape over it. Whether a patch is there,
who knows.

Q. Do you think that somebody might have wanted to repair it so they

could use it better?
A. How would I know what they were thinking?

[page 133]

Q. Can you think of any other reason why a person would put sticky
tape on a water bottle?
A. I have no idea.

Q. No idea? Okay. Would you have a look please at folder 7 behind

tab B page 11. See that photograph?63
A. The one with the money, yes.

Q. Now you have heard the evidence given by the police that that is
foreign currency found in your bedroom, bedroom number 3?
A. That’s right.

Making important linkages and probing them — foreign

currency
2.99 Foreign currency was found in Milat’s home. This was Indonesian
money (Neugebauer and Habschied had backpacked in Indonesia
before coming to Australia), New Zealand money (Schmidl had been
to New Zealand before coming to Australia) and an English 20 pence
piece was found in the console of Milat’s Jackeroo car (Clarke and
Walters, and Onions, were from England).64 Tedeschi explores this
 evidence; Milat appears to have difficulty explaining his possession
of this money.

Q. You are not going to tell us that you didn’t go into your bedroom,
are you?
A. Pardon?

Q. You are not going to tell us that you didn’t go into your bedroom,
are you?
A. Who didn’t?

Q. Did you use bedroom number 3 at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?

A. Yes, that’s my bedroom.

Q. And you told the police that was your bedroom?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you told them the truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you have heard the evidence that that foreign currency was
found in your bedroom?
A. I heard them say that, yes.

[page 134]

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury how some
Indonesian currency came to be in your bedroom?
A. I’ve got no explanation how any Indonesian money was in my
 bedroom. I had some Australian money and some New Zealand
money. The police asked me about the New Zealand money that
morning and that was about it. I have no idea how any Indonesian
money got there.

Q. You are not suggesting that the police planted that money on you,
are you?
A. I wouldn’t suggest that at all.

Q. So, do you suggest that someone has put that — have you got any
explanation to give to the jury how that Indonesian currency came
to be in your bedroom?
A. Just what I’ve just told them, everything I recall about any money.

Q. Have you got any explanation how that Indonesian currency came
to be in your bedroom?
A. I never seen any Indonesian currency. No one asked me about
Indonesian money.

Q. Do you tell the jury the Indonesian money --

A. I’d imagine when Mr Leach talked to me about the New Zealand
currency, if there was any other currency there, he would have
asked me about that too.

Q. You have seen the photographs of the currency on something in

your bedroom?
A. Yes, it looks like my quilt.

Q. That currency was found in your bedroom?

A. That’s what they’re saying.
Q. You are not suggesting that the police have loaded you up with it,
are you?
A. I’m not suggesting that at all.

Q. So when do you think someone has put that money into your
bedroom, prior to the police coming on the morning of 22 May
1994?
A. I have no idea. The money that I had in my drawer — the
Australian money and the New Zealand money — that was in an
envelope, a fairly large envelope and I had my passport, rego
papers, personal things like that and there was — to my
knowledge there was never any Indonesian money there.

Q. When do you think that came to be in your bedroom?

A. Well, whenever they took the photos too.

Q. I’m sorry?
A. Well, I can only assume when the photos were taken.

Q. You think the police brought it in?

A. I don’t know. I’m not thinking nothing.

[page 135]

Q. I’m sorry, Mr Milat. I understood you to be making no allegations

against the police that they brought that money into your --
A. I don’t know whether they brought it in there. I haven’t brought it in
there.
Q. Well, Mr Milat --
A. I just find it strange that they never asked me about it, that’s all.

Q. Whether that was found in your bedside table --

A. I accept that because you’re telling me that.

Q. You would accept that?

HIS HONOUR: No, he has said that you told him that.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Do you accept that it was found in the

drawer of your bedside table?
A. The police said they found it in there.

Q. And you don’t dispute that, do you?

A. That the police told me that --

Q. No, that they found it there?

A. I can, yes.

Q. You do dispute it?

A. I can, yes, because I’ve got no knowledge of it.

Q. But are you now saying that the police may have deliberately
come into that house with Indonesian currency and planted it in
your drawer?
A. No, I’m not saying that at all.

Q. Well, when do you say that someone has put that Indonesian
currency in your drawer?
A. I’d have no idea.
Q. Well, when was the last time you used your drawer?
A. I use it every day, so to speak.

Q. And you open it up?

A. Yes.

Q. You put money into it or you put other things into it?
A. Sorry, this money was here?

Q. Yeah.
A. That would only be opened once in a blue moon, like say I want
my rego papers or something like that.

[page 136]

Q. So is this what you are saying, that — do you think there is a

possibility that whoever came into your house and deposited the
Ruger parts and the camping equipment and the water bottle and
all the other items — slipped into your bedroom and put some
Indonesian currency there?
A. No, I’m not saying that at all.

Q. Well, what are you saying? How did that currency come to be in
your bedroom?
A. Are you mystified by it, because I am. I’m not trying to be funny,
Mr Tedeschi, but I’ve got no idea how it got there.

When to ask for an explanation

2.100 This is a good example of inviting an explanation from the witness,
 in the confident knowledge that none will be forthcoming. If the
cross-examiner is not virtually certain that there is no plausible
answer, then such a question should not be asked. But when the
cross-examiner is certain, and knows that the answer will inevitably
be a weak one, then this can be highly effective, as it was here.

Q. No idea at all?
A. No sir.

Q. Can’t give the jury any explanation at all how the Indonesian
currency came to be there?
A. No, I just find it strange that if it was there why wouldn’t they ask
me about foreign currency.

Do not answer questions from the witness

2.101 On a number of occasions during the cross-examination, the witness
has asked the cross-examiner a question. Tedeschi never responds
with an answer (unless it is to clarify the question), but presses on
with the questioning. This is the correct approach. To do otherwise
almost always results in loss of momentum and gives undue
importance to the witness’s question.

Q. Mr Milat, I suggest to you that you knew perfectly well that

Indonesian currency was there because you put it there?
A. I had no idea it was there.

Q. Did you take that Indonesian currency from Gabor Neugebauer

and Anja Habschied?
A. I took nothing off them. I haven’t met them. I wouldn’t know who
 they are.

Q. Now would you have a look at this exhibit, that is exhibit GM,
which is a 20p, 20 pence piece. You have heard the evidence that
was found in your car?
A. Yes.

[page 137]

Q. And the only explanation that you have been able to offer for that
is that someone called Durinda from England came to visit you, is
that right?
A. That would be the closest I could give.

Q. Is Durinda Chalinder’s sister?

A. Correct.

Q. And does she live in England?

A. Dubai.

Q. In Dubai?
A. Yes.

Q. So why would she have a 20p coin?

A. Why would she have a 20 pence coin?

Q. Yes, if she comes from Dubai?

A. Her parents live in England. She had a home in England as well.
She travels to and fro quite often.
Q. And she has been in your car, has she?
A. She probably has. I can’t think of an actual time.

Q. She was tipping you with 20 pence coins, was she?

A. No.

Using sarcasm
2.102 This is effective here but, as noted previously, sarcasm should be
deployed sparingly.

Q. Have you got any explanation for why a 20p coin would be in
your console, of your Jackeroo?
A. I’ve got no idea at all.

Q. No idea. Have you stolen it from some backpackers?

A. Definitely not.

Q. Did you get it from either Caroline Clarke or Joanne Walters or

Paul Onions?
A. Pauline?

Q. Paul Onions?
A. No.

Q. There was a jacket in your Jackeroo, wasn’t there, in the back of

the Jackeroo?
A. A green — yes.
 [page 138]

Q. That was yours?

A. Yes.

Q. It had the name Preston on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is Mr Preston?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Have you got a friend called Preston?

A. Yes.

Q. What is his full name?

A. John Preston.

Q. Does that jacket come from him?

A. No, oh I don’t think so.

Q. Where does the jacket come from?

A. Wally or Richard give me that jacket.

Q. Did you keep 22 bullets in it?

A. I kept bullets in the pockets, yes.

Q. Also found in your car was a barrel cap, exhibit KH?65

A. I heard that, yes.
Q. Do you acknowledge that that fits the Anschutz?
A. They tell me it does.

Q. You don’t dispute that?

A. No.

Q. And also in one of the photographs of the console there’s a rubber

glove, a surgical glove, not just a kitchen glove, but a surgical
glove. Have you seen that photo?
A. I think I did. I seen it handed up. I never really — where I sit I can’t
really see.

Probing the unusual; using the technique of ‘itemisation’

2.103 A green surgical glove66 was found in the console of the Jackeroo —
this was an unusual find indeed. Note how skillfully the cross-
examiner explores with the witness the possible uses of a surgical
glove, which would prevent the

[page 139]

wearer from leaving fingerprints. Milat denies any knowledge of this

glove, yet Tedeschi reminds him that he owns many other items in
the console. The denial of ownership of the glove stands out
prominently and is very unconvincing. This technique of
‘itemisation’ of all the other items found in the same place is highly
effective in such circumstances, and reveals the ‘odd thing out’ as an
unlikely proposition.

Q. Do you remember having a green surgical glove in your Jackeroo?

A. No.

Q. Can you think of any reason why you would have had a green
surgical glove in the Jackeroo?
A. Not one.

Only ask for an explanation when there is not a reasonable

one
2.104 This is another good example of when this is a safe and effective
question. The presence of a green surgical glove in the console of the
Jackeroo was very unusual and a reasonable explanation was
unlikely to be forthcoming.

Q. Not one. Would you have a look at folder 7, tab H, photo 7. You
see there are a whole lot of items in the console there. You see?
A. Yes.

Probing the ‘odd one out’

2.105 As noted above, Tedeschi itemises, one by one, each of the many
other items in the console and asks whether they are Milat’s. The
witness agrees that they are, with the exception of the threaded
barrel cap and the green surgical glove. Thus his denial of knowledge
of the surgical glove and the threaded barrel cap makes them ‘odd
ones out’ and this indicates that further exploration and probing
may be of assistance to the cross-examiner.

Q. Do you see there are some keys with a tag that says ‘Ivan’ —
number 7?
A. Yes.

Q. You see the keys with the tag ‘Ivan’?67

A. Correct, yes.

Q. Are they your keys?

A. I would say they are.

Q. Well, are they your keys or not?

A. I don’t know whether it’s keys there or not. I see a key ring.

[page 140]

Q. Do you see the writing on that tag?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that your tag?

A. It’s got my name on it.

Q. Is it yours?
A. Could be.

Q. Is the writing yours?

A. I don’t recognise it but I would say it probably is.

Q. Are the keys yours?

A. I don’t believe it’s a key.

Q. Well, whatever it is, is it yours?

A. Yes, well it’s in me car.

Q. Is the torch yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the padlock yours?

A. Well, I can’t see a padlock but I would say yes, if it’s in there.

Q. Is the towbar ball yours?

A. That’s not a towbar ball but that round ball is.

Q. What is it?
A. It’s just a steel ball.

Q. Is the battery yours?

A. I imagine so.

Q. Is the pen yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that what looks like a bolt yours?

A. The nut you mean?

Q. The nut, yes I am sorry?

A. The nut, I suppose it is, yes.

Q. The piece of blue and white material, looks like a --

A. Handkerchief.
Q. Handkerchief or tea towel or something like that. Is that yours — it
looks more like a tea towel?
A. I don’t know.

[page 141]

Q. Is that yours?
A. Well, the tea towel?

Q. That blue and white material?

A. I don’t know, I suppose it is.

Q. Do you agree that all the items in there, putting aside the green
plastic glove, are yours?
A. I imagine it all is, yes.

Q. But the green plastic glove, is that yours?

A. I ve never seen the green plastic glove before.

Q. Is it yours?
A. No.

Q. So it is one item in that photograph of the console of your car, a

photograph taken of your car in the condition it was in on 22 May
1994, it is the sole item that is not yours, is that right?
A. Well the barrel cap I dispute whether that is mine in that too.

Q. The sole item — I suppose you can see the barrel cap too?
A. I believe I can.
Q. Put the barrel cap to one side, are all the rest of the items yours?
A. I imagine they are.

Q. What about the green plastic glove?

A. I can’t ever recall seeing it there.

Q. Is it yours?
A. I would say no.

Q. Is it the only item, putting aside the barrel cap for the moment,
there that is not yours?
A. From what I can see I would say yes.

Q. Can you give the jury any explanation for why a green plastic
glove would find its way into your console of your car?
A. Somebody must have put it there. I have got no personal
knowledge of it.

Rhetorically asking for an explanation when there is none

2.106 This question invites the witness for an explanation, in the
knowledge that there will be none given. Tedeschi asks such
questions several times in this passage of the evidence to
considerable effect.

[page 142]

Q. When do you think somebody has put it there?

A. I would have no idea.
Q. Well, when was the last time you looked in your console?
A. Probably a week.

Q. A week earlier, was it there then?

A. No. I can’t recall seeing it there anyway.

Q. So a week before 22 May 1994 it was not there?

A. I am not saying it was not there, I just can’t recall whether it was
there.

Q. Do you say it was put in there during that last week?

A. I never put it in there.

Q. Do you think somebody has put it there during that last week?
A. They could have put it there any time I suppose, whoever did.

Q. Can you think of any reason why someone would want to put a
single green surgical glove in the console of your car?
A. I don’t know. All I know is I never had no green surgical glove in
the car.

Q. Can you think of any reason why someone else would want to put
a green single surgical glove into your car?
A. I would have absolutely no idea.

Q. Can’t think of any reason at all?

A. No.

Q. You think that someone else has put it there during that last week?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Why would someone else put it there?

A. I would have no idea.

Q. Do you think somebody wanted to implicate you?

A. Implicate me in what?

Answering a question from the witness

2.107 This is one of the very few occasions Tedeschi answers the witness’s
question, and it is done to amplify the original question and most
dramatically so, by reminding the witness (and the jury) of much of
the compelling evidence that emerged during the day’s cross-
examination.

[page 143]

Q. Implicate you in the same crimes that were involved with all the
camping equipment, the Ruger parts, the Anschutz, the High Sierra
day pack, the yellow haversack and all the other items that you
have said you did not put where they were found. Do you think
somebody might have wanted to implicate you by placing that
rubber glove there?
A. I have got no idea what to do with – what rubber gloves has got to
do with anything.

Q. If somebody did commit a crime, any sort of a crime, what use do

you think a rubber glove would be?
A. A rubber glove?
The hypothetical question for the witness to answer that also
carries an insinuation
2.108 This is a very effective use of the hypothetical question. If the cross-
examiner had asked this question in a more direct and leading form
(for example, ‘Wouldn’t a glove prevent a person leaving a
fingerprint?’) the witness may have easily avoided giving an answer
useful to the cross-examiner. But with the hypothetical question,
pressed despite the witness’s apparent reluctance to answer it, the
witness is forced to reveal the obvious use that could be made of a
rubber glove by a criminal wishing to avoid detection.

Q. Yes.
A. If they committed a crime, the only time I’ve seen anyone wearing
rubber gloves really is these gentlemen here when they search
people in the morning before we go to court, they wear rubber
gloves.

Q. What benefit do you think there would be for a person committing

a criminal offence in wearing a rubber glove or gloves. Can you
think of any?
A. I have got no idea.

Q. What effect do you think it would have on fingerprints?

A. Again, a surgical rubber glove?

Q. Yes.
A. Well, I would not know. I imagine, seeing you are bringing it up
now, is that it don’t leave fingerprints I suppose.
Q. Is that something you just thought of now?
A. Yes.

Q. You have never considered that possibility for a rubber glove

before?
A. Definitely not. I always assumed actually that I thought it was
suggested here that the police, when they were searching the car,
they inadvertently left it there.

Q. No, that has not been suggested?

A. I think I have heard it at one stage or another in there.

[page 144]

Q. In relation to this glove in the console of your car that has never
been suggested?
A. Well, I must be hearing wrong. I know me hearing is a bit off but I
thought something like that come up.

Q. I suggest to you that you knew perfectly well that that rubber glove
was in the car?
A. I had no idea the rubber glove is in the car.

Q. And I ask you did you wear it by any chance in the crimes in the
Belanglo State Forest in order to prevent fingerprints being left?
A. I wore no — I never seen the glove before.

Pressing opportunities that suddenly arise

2.109 Here, Tedeschi confronts the witness with the suggestion that he
 may have worn a rubber glove for the crimes in the Belanglo State
Forest. Milat’s intriguing answer commenced, ‘I wore no …’, and
gave some people present in court at the time a strong sense that
Milat was about to make a ‘Freudian slip’ and say something like, ‘I
wore no gloves when I was in the forest’, but that is idle speculation
because he did not say that. Nevertheless, it was a dramatic moment
in the cross-examination that Tedeschi pursued with a few follow up
questions. This is a good example of the effectiveness of pursuing
new opportunities that unexpectedly arise from the witness’s answer.
The timing was also dramatic in that it was the final line of
questioning before the court adjourned for the day.

Q. You wore no what?

A. Well I never wore that glove. I never seen it before.

Q. You were just about to say ‘I wore no’ and then you stopped.
A. I was going to say I wore no gloves at all.

Q. You wore no gloves at all in the forest, is that what you were going
to say?
A. No, in the car.

<WITNESS STOOD DOWN

ADJOURNED TO WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE 1996

1 The CAD (Central Asphalt Depot) is a section of the RTA.

2 See the Eagle Vale house plan in Diagram 1; see also Photo 1 showing the location of the
work boots in the cupboard and Photo 2 showing the boots and the receiver hidden in
them.
3 Wirtgen was the name of the company that manufactured the road profiling machine that
Milat worked on.
4 Milat has not admitted that the boots in the hall cupboard were the boots he wore to work.
He said they were his ‘going out’ boots that he wore socially when he rode his motorbike.
The cumulative effect of his answers is to severely narrow the window of opportunity for
anyone else to have planted the Ruger receiver in his boot in the cupboard, where it was
found by police.
5 There was no evidence that any boots were found in the garage near the doorway into the
hall.
6 It is helpful to have regard to the diagram of Milat’s house in Eagle Vale, to understand the
layout of the various rooms and features: see Diagram 1.
7 See Photo 1.
8 See Photos 3, 4 and 5.
9 Sarcasm is appropriately and effectively used here.
10 Milat’s black powder revolver was stored in a wooden box painted camouflage colours:
see Photo 6.
11 On the same day that the police arrested Milat and searched his home at Eagle Vale there
were simultaneous raids by police upon the homes of his mother at Guildford (where Milat
had lived at the time of the murders), his brother Walter at Hilltop, and his brother Richard
at Hilltop. Milat had, some weeks before, transferred from his roof space above his garage
to an alcove under Walter’s home a number of firearms and much ammunition, as well as
other belongings. Items belonging to one of Milat’s victims, Simone (‘Simi’) Schmidl, were
also found in the alcove among the items that the prosecution asserted Milat had moved
there. He was assisted in moving these items by Walter and Richard.
12 See Photo 7.
13 See Photos 8 and 9.
14 See Photo 15.
15 See Diagram 2.
16 See Photo 10.
17 The Sarnia box can be seen in Photo 10.
18 See Photo 18.
19 See Photo 39.
20 See Photo 2.
21 See Photos 16 and 17.
22 See Photo 6.
23 See Photos 11, 12 and 13.
24 See Photo 14.
25 See Photo 4.
26 The ‘Ramline’ magazine was capable of holding 50 .22 calibre bullets and suitable for use
with a Ruger 10/22 rifle.
27 At the top right of the title page of the Ruger manual (see Photo 15) had been written the
date ‘4 4 92’, in a distinctive way without slashes or dots between the day/month/year.
 This was a distinctive way in which Milat wrote dates on a number of items known to be
his. His former wife also identified this as his way of writing dates. The significance of this
date was that it was on this date that a Ruger rifle had been purchased from the Horsley
Park Gun Shop by someone using a shooter’s licence belonging to Jock Pittaway (a friend
of Milat who was in New Zealand on that date). The gun itself, apparently unused, was
located among Milat’s possessions in the alcove under Walter Milat’s home at Hilltop, still
in its original box.
28 See Photo 38.
29 See Photo 14.
30 See Photo 4.
31 The Ruger manual is shown in Photo 15.
32 See Photos 16 and 17.
33 See Photo 39.
34 See Photo 18, showing the Browning pistol, magazine, ammunition and holster found by
police under the washing machine in the laundry at Eagle Vale.
35 Milat had a distinctive way of writing his initial with the ‘I’ running vertically through the
middle of the ‘M’. See, for example, Photo 19, showing his initials written on a pair of
work-issue trousers found at Eagle Vale.
36 See Photo 39.
37 See 2.46.
38 This is another hunch, along the same line as referred to at 2.68.
39 See Photo 7.
40 See Photo 10.
41 See Photos 11, 12 and 13.
42 See Photo 21.
43 See Photos 21 and 22.
44 See Photo 11.
45 See Photo 4 — exhibit EV was the plastic bag containing gun parts (the Ruger 10/22 bolt
was wrapped in the piece of shirt material) found in the wall cavity at Eagle Vale.
46 See Photo 23 — exhibit JA was the rifle bolt wrapped in green cloth, found inside Milat’s
grey locker at Guildford. See Photo 24 of the locker, which contained numerous gun-
related items.
47 See Photo 24.
48 Referring to the Ruger rotary magazine found in the wall cavity: see Photo 5.
49 The nickname ‘Texas’ was of significance because Milat’s acknowledgement of it
established that he did in fact use nicknames. His former wife had testified that he did so
and that these included ‘Texas’, ‘Bargo Bill’, ‘Mac’, ‘Joe Spanner’ and, significantly, ‘Bill’,
which was the name that was given to Paul Onions by the offender.
50 See Photos 25 and 26.
51 See Photo 21.
52 See Photos 21 and 11.
53 The High Sierra day pack (see Photos 25 and 26) was identical to one that belonged to
Simone Schmidl. The Crown case was that this indeed was hers, and the defence at trial
made an admission that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that this item was
in the possession of Schmidl at or immediately before her death. It also was found with
Ivan Milat’s property in the alcove at Walter Milat’s home.
54 ‘MFI’ means ‘marked for identification’ — this is a means of identifying an item that has not
yet been tendered and so does not have an exhibit number. Marking an item for
identification results in a numbered label being put on the item so that it can be
appropriately kept track of.
55 The full moon cartridge adaptors permit a different calibre of cartridge to be used in a
revolver. Four of these, each loaded with six cartridges, were located among other items in
the High Sierra day pack found in the alcove at Walter’s house.
56 See Photo 27 which shows the full moon clips that were located in a coin bag in the
console; see Photo 29 showing Milat’s Jackeroo in his garage.
57 See Photo 21. The name ‘Ivan’ is written on the underside of the flap and is not visible in
this photo.
58 Simone Schmidl’s camping cook set was located by police in the kitchen cupboard at
Eagle Vale: see Photos 74 and 75. Milat made an admission at the trial that the only
reasonable inference to be drawn was that this had been in Schmidl’s possession at or
immediately before the time of her death. He did not make any admission about having
taken it or having put it where it was found by police.
59 See Photo 30, a police photo showing a revolver loaded with such bullets.
60 See Photo 31.
61 See Photo 32.
62 See Photo 31.
63 See Photo 33.
64 See Photos 34, 35 and 36.
65 A threaded barrel cap (see Photo 34 where it can be seen in the bottom right-hand corner,
and Photo 37) was also found in the console of Milat’s Holden Jackaroo car. This fitted the
muzzle of the Anschutz rifle that had been threaded (which would make it suitable for
fitting a silencer).
66 See Photo 34.
67 See Photo 34 where the name tag can be clearly seen in the console.
[page 145]
 CHAPTER 3
DAY TWO OF CROSS-
EXAMINATION
19 JUNE 1996

OVERVIEW
Day two of cross-examination again demonstrated a multitude of notable
cross-examination techniques. A number of the techniques used mirror those
used on day one, but other additional techniques can also be identified,
including:
undermining through contrast;
order and sequencing questions;
insisting on a more precise answer;
‘punctuation’;
laying the groundwork for confronting a witness;
asking questions based on what a reasonable person might expect to be
so;
identifying a witness’s habits;
the use of breaks in cross-examination; and
placing the witness into an active, rather than a passive, role.
As the evidence against the accused was largely circumstantial, day two
deals with a significant amount of forensic and photographic evidence. Mark
Tedeschi QC demonstrates techniques which draw together the evidence
against the accused, including:
patient development of evidence;
drawing stands of evidence together;
confronting the witness with incriminating items;
probing, pressing and underscoring the significance of evidence by
combining it with another significant and related piece of evidence;
making connections between different items; making connections by
aggregating and unifying evidence;
using photographs to great effect; spotting and probing incriminating
evidence in a photograph; and
using a magnifying glass.
The direction based on Jones v Dunkel is also discussed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
HIS HONOUR: Members of the jury, I want to draw your attention to an
answer which Mr Milat gave yesterday, not a criticism of him because I
have had the same impression that he did. You, like I, probably have
had trouble with the detail of this case from time to time.
Mr Milat was being cross-examined about a glove found in the
console of his Jackeroo vehicle in the garage at [XXXXXXXX] Street
[Eagle Vale] and it was being suggested to

[page 146]

him that people who wear gloves do not leave fingerprints — you
remember that late in the afternoon yesterday — and he was asked this
question at page 2803:
‘Q. You have never considered that possibility for a rubber
glove before?
A. Definitely not. I always assumed actually that I thought it
was suggested here that the police, when they were
searching the car, they inadvertently left it there.’
The Crown said, ‘No, that has not been suggested’, and Mr Milat
said, ‘I think I have heard it at one stage or another in there’. The
Crown said:
‘Q. In relation to this glove in the console of your car that has
never been suggested?
A. Well, I must be hearing wrong. I know me hearing is a bit
off but I thought something like that came up.’
My memory started to turn over and I recalled some such thing being
said. We do in fact have in this case, I think, five gloves and it did
come up about a glove but not about that glove. There was a glove
found in the High Sierra blue day pack which was admitted to have
been Simone Schmidl’s, which was found in the alcove of Walter
Milat’s house and indeed there was a glove.
Now Det Snr Const Waterman said that that glove was consistent
with being a police glove and that it could have belonged to one of the
police officers who had conducted the search there. For that reason of
course that particular glove was not tendered in evidence.
The day pack is exhibit GY and the contents are exhibit GZ. I am
right, aren’t I, that was not tendered, it is not part of exhibit GZ?

CROWN PROSECUTOR: No.

HIS HONOUR: I am glad my memory is right about some things. Const

Waterman also said that the glove which was found in the console of
the Jackeroo vehicle in the garage was nothing like a police glove, it is
at page 1182. So at least we have got it straight. As I say, I am not
drawing that to your attention in order to criticise the accused. He is
probably having the same problem with detail that we all are.
(Counsel indicated they did not wish anything further added to what his
Honour had said.)

<ACCUSED (10.20AM)
ON FORMER OATH, CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED

HIS HONOUR: Q. You are still bound by the oath you took the day
before yesterday, Mr Milat?
A. Yes sir.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Might I show you exhibit GB, the Cadpac

bag.1 (Exhibit GB was shown to witness.) You have seen that Cadpac
bag?
A. Yes.

[page 147]

Q. That was found by the police in your garage?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Do you know how it came to be in your garage?

A. I put it there.

Q. Where did you get it from?

A. From work.

Q. Why did you bring that bag from your work to your home?
A. To put stuff in it.
Q. Did you bring it home with anything in it?
A. I wouldn’t believe — wouldn’t think so.

Q. Did you bring it home empty?

A. I’d imagine, yes.

Q. You have seen in evidence exhibit NC, the Groening Bag, the
jumbo bag?2
A. Yes.

Q. The bag of rags?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you get that from?

A. From work.

Q. When did you bring that to your home?

A. When I moved from — some time in 1993 from — are you talking
to Eagle Vale?

Q. Yes, when you moved in August 1993?

A. Something like that, yes. It could have been later.

Q. And did you have it at Guildford before that?

A. Yes.

[page 148]

Q. When did you bring it to Guildford from your work?

A. I think I’d be battling to remember that. It could have been any
time.

Q. Well, can you give us a year?

A. Hard to say. Could be any time from 87 to 93.

Q. Well, was there just the one Groening bag that you brought from
your work to your home?
A. Yes.

Q. And when you brought it from your work to your home, was it full
of rags?
A. It wouldn’t have been full of rags, no.

Q. Was it half full of rags?

A. Probably none at all in it.

Q. None at all?
A. I don’t know. I can’t really recall.

Q. Well, did you bring an empty Groening bag to your home at

Guildford or did you bring it with some rags in it?
A. Could have been some in it.

Q. Do you remember?
A. No.

Q. Why would you have brought to your home an empty Groening

bag?
A. Probably because I wanted to put something in it.
Q. Did you bring some rags from your work to your home either at
Guildford or Eagle Vale?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you bring them in a bag or did you bring them loose, or
what?
A. Usually you just grab four or five, put them in your work bag and
away you go.3

Q. So is this the case, that you would keep your Groening bag at your
home stocked up with rags from work?
A. Basically, yes.

Q. And you would stock it up from time to time as the need arose?
A. Yes.

[page 149]

Q. From rags at your work?

A. That’s right.

Q. And at your work at the RTA — when I say ‘RTA’ I mean the CAD,
when it was part of the RTA — there were both jumbo rags, light
cotton rags, heavy cotton rags and government issue rags, is that
right?
A. I wouldn’t know. They all looked the same to me.

Q. Well, were there rags of varying types?

A. No, they always seemed to be them fluffy type ones.
Q. Were there rags made out of shirt material?4
A. All I know is they were always sort of soft and fluffy. That’s about
the only thing I noticed about them.

Q. At work, did they have rags made out of shirt material?

A. I don’t know.

Q. But is this what you tell the court, that from time to time you would
bring rags home from your work and put them in the Groening
bag that you had at home?
A. That’s right.

Q. And that was the case both at Guildford and at Eagle Vale?
A. That’s right.

Q. So that whatever rags were available at any particular time at your

work, you would from time to time bring them home and put them
into the Groening bag?
A. Yes.

Q. Now you have heard the evidence from Mr Bauer that he used to
supply the RTA. You have heard that evidence?
A. Yes.

Q. From a company called — I think it was Waige & Co?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have heard his evidence that he used to supply light
cotton material to the RTA?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.

[page 150]

Q. Have you seen light cotton material at your work at the CAD?
A. No.

Q. Never seen it?

A. No.

Q. Now, did you have permission to take those rags home?

A. No.

Q. Did you have permission to take the Groening bag?

A. No.

Q. Now you had some sash cord material in your garage?

A. Yes.

The importance of ‘patient development’ of crucial evidence

— the sash cords
3.1 Continuing to itemise the various pieces of evidence that implicated
Milat, Tedeschi comes to the sash cords. A number of pieces of sash
cord had been found in Milat’s garage. They were identical to the
sash cord that was one of the components of the ‘restraint device’
found in Area A at the Neugebauer/Habschied crime scene.5 These
sash cords were identical to the piece of sash cord found in the
 pillowslip on the shelf in Milat’s garage6 which the Crown alleged
was ‘the bag of ropes’ that Onions had seen his attacker retrieve from
under the car seat. The pillowslip and one of the pieces of sash cord
inside the pillowslip had bloodstains on them.7 DNA testing
established that the DNA profile of the blood from the sash cord was
118,000 times more likely to have occurred if it were the blood of a
child of Caroline Clarke’s parents (such as Caroline) than if it had
come from an unrelated or unknown individual. This extremely
important evidence was such as might cause a less experienced
advocate to jump in and bluntly confront the witness straight away;
here, Tedeschi takes his time and gains much in doing so. By asking
Milat first about the several pieces of sash cord found in various
places, that he was likely to (and did) admit were his, the cross-
examiner creates a background against which any denial of
ownership of the sash cords in the pillowcase must seem incredible.

Q. I think you said that you had sash cord in your possession for
years?
A. That’s right.

[page 151]

Q. And in fact Karen Milat’s evidence that you used to use sash cord
to tie on to your trailer whilst you were married to her was correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you have a look please at this photograph, folder 7 behind

tab E, photo number 23 (shown). You see a piece of sash cord in
that photograph on a toolbox?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you acknowledge that that sash cord belonged to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you have a look please at this exhibit which is the same
piece of sash cord, exhibit JQ (shown). That is the piece of sash
cord shown in that photograph sitting on the top of inside your
toolbox.8 It has been frayed for the purpose of examination, Mr
Milat?
A. Well, I can’t say it is the same because I remember the bit in me
toolbox seemed to be a couple of metres long.

Q. I withdraw my suggestion to you that piece of sash cord I have

shown you is in fact from shelving, not from the toolbox, but the
piece of sash cord from the toolbox you admit that is yours?
A. Yes, I had a bit in there a couple of metres long.

Q. I would like to show you another photograph of some more sash

cord on the shelf (shown). Do you see the piece of sash cord in
photographs 33 and 34 just lying on some gloves?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that your sash cord?

A. Most probably.

Q. I suggest to you that the sash cord that I showed you in the exhibit
is in fact that sash cord sitting on the shelf there?
A. Could be.

Q. Whereabouts on your shelving is that particular area of shelf?

A. Whereabouts?
Q. Whereabouts on your shelves is that?
A. Just against the back wall of the garage.

Q. Now, you agree that it is on shelving against the back wall of your
garage?
A. Yes.

[page 152]

Q. That is the wall furthest away from the door of the garage?
A. That’s right.

Q. Also found on that shelving — perhaps if you could go to

photograph number 3 in that same section — the photograph of
the piece of sash cord shows a Bushland detergent box. Can you
see that Bushland detergent box in photograph 3 in that same
section?
A. I think I do.

Q. It is just above a coloured piece of rag over a lawnmower?

A. That’s right.

Q. Is that where the piece of sash cord was?

A. I could not really say so in looking at this. It could be, I can’t really
say so.

Q. From the photograph that is where it appears to be?

A. I could not say that.
Q. Can you see the toolbox on the floor of the garage?
A. Yes.

Q. That is where the other piece of sash cord was?

A. Inside the toolbox?

Q. Yes.
A. I had a piece in the toolbox, yes.

Q. You do not dispute that those two pieces of sash cord were yours?
A. No, I do not dispute that at all.

Undermining through use of contrast

3.2 The cross-examiner here asks the witness about sash cords that the
witness admits were his. The contrast that follows, when the witness
denies that the sash cords in the pillowslip were his, is very effective
and highlights the implausibility of the witness’s answer.

Q. Now, we then come to the sash cords that were in the pillowslip.
Now would you have a look please at photographs 42 and 43 in
that same section. You see them?
A. Yes.

Q. Now you have heard the evidence that those pieces of sash cord,
being five pieces, were found inside a pillowslip in the shelving
against the back wall of your garage?
A. I heard that, yes.
 [page 153]

Q. You have heard that evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Were those pieces of sash cord yours?

A. No.

Confronting the witness with forensic evidence

3.3 When the witness’s denial comes, in the question that follows,
Tedeschi is immediately ready to confront the witness with the
established evidence of the forensic scientist about the sash cord.
This not only exposes the frailty of the witness’s position; it also
dramatically reminds the jury of the forensic evidence in a way that
makes its significance clear for all to see.

Q. You have heard the evidence of Mr Gothard that some of the

pieces of sash cord in the pillowslip are exactly of the same kind
as the one piece of sash cord from the shelving that you do not
dispute is yours. Do you understand that question?
A. I understand it, yes.

Q. You have also heard the evidence of Mr Gothard that the sash
cord is the same kind as the sash cord from the death scene of
Gabor Neugebauer and Anja Habschied in the Belanglo State
Forest, haven’t you?
A. I’ve heard lots of things. I don’t know what --

Q. You have heard the evidence?

A. I can’t really recall that but if you tell me it is, it is.

‘If you tell me so …’

3.4 By this time, the cross-examiner has so firmly established his
intimate knowledge of the vast and intricate factual background of
the case, that even the accused accepts Tedeschi’s word on this point.
This dynamic is very difficult to achieve, but once achieved it is one
of the most powerful tools available to the cross-examiner. It
generally can only occur if the brief has been thoroughly mastered
by careful preparation and attention to detail and the repeated
demonstration of that mastery during the presentation of the case.

Q. You have also heard evidence that the blood on one of those
pieces of sash cord in the pillowslip is consistent with coming from
a child of Mr and Mrs Clarke. You have heard that evidence?
A. Yes.

[page 154]

Drawing strands of evidence together

3.5 The cross-examiner is now drawing together all of the evidence of
the sash cords. Having dealt with them individually, this is the next
stage of building the cumulative effect of this evidence to then move
on to the critical sash cord with the DNA material on it.

Q. You have also heard the evidence that it is 118,000 times more
likely to have come from a child of the Clarkes than it is from the
community at large?
A. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: I am not sure that Mr Goetz would agree with that. He
calls that the prosecutor’s fallacy.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: I thought I had put it the correct way.

HIS HONOUR: No, he said that the chances of there being a

coincidence between somebody else and a child of the Clarkes was 1
in 118,000. I think we had better keep to his formula. You can look it
up. He did concede that it is difficult to understand the distinction.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: I don’t understand the difference but I would

wish to put it in the correct way.

Q. Have you got any explanation as to how these five pieces of sash
cord in the pillowcase came to be in your garage?
A. No explanation at all. I’ve never seen them there.

‘Have you got any explanation …?’

3.6 Particularly in a circumstantial case, this question can be
devastating, but only if the groundwork has been done, so that the
cross-examiner knows that there is no explanation. The groundwork
has been done here. The cross-examiner is then ready to press the
advantage further, by confronting the witness with the fact that the
very pillowslip in which the sash cords he denies ever having seen
were located, came from his own mother’s home in Guildford, where
Milat’s former wife had remembered seeing it, as she stated in her
evidence. This question should never be asked prematurely — it is
astonishing how resourceful a witness can be if allowed to ‘explain’
things that he or she knows cannot be disproved.
Q. You’ve never seen them there?
A. No.

[page 155]

Q. Could I show you exhibit FY, the pillowslip. Evidence has been
given that that belonged to your mother. You don’t dispute that, do
you?
A. I wouldn’t know.

Q. Well, you don’t dispute it, do you?

A. Yes I do. I don’t know. How can I say that?

Q. Do you dispute the evidence that that was part of a set that was
used by your mother at Guildford?
A. I wouldn’t have a clue.

Q. Do you dispute it?

A. How could I dispute it? I don’t know anything about it.

Q. So you don’t dispute it?

A. Yes I do.

Q. Well, are you saying that that evidence is wrong?

A. No. I’m saying I know nothing about it.

Q. So you are not in a position to say it is either right or wrong, is that

right?
A. Correct. I don’t know what me mother’s got.
Q. Now I take it that your mother would be in a position to be able to
say if that is one of her sheet sets or not?
A. If it’s hers, yes.

The direction based on Jones v Dunkel9

3.7 This and a number of subsequent questions were asked with a view
to establishing what evidence Milat’s mother may have been able to
give and whether she was capable of coming to court to do so. The
purpose of such questions was to establish the necessary
groundwork for a request that the trial judge give a ‘Jones v Dunkel’
direction to the jury to the effect that if a witness is not called whom
they would reasonably have expected the defence to have called then
they might be entitled to infer that such evidence would not have
assisted the defence case, although they must not speculate what that
evidence might have been if the witness had been called to give
evidence by the defence. This kind of direction was quite common in
criminal trials at the time of the Milat trial, but the High Court has
since held in Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 that such
reasoning will only be available in the most unusual circumstances
and that, as a general rule, such a direction should not be given
because of the basic rule that it is for the prosecution to prove its
case.

[page 156]

Q. And your mother — where does she live now?

A. [XXXXXXXX XXXX] Road.

Q. Still at Guildford?
A. Yes.

Q. She is mentally sound?

A. I hope so.

Q. She gets around a bit?

A. Pardon.

Q. Does she get around a bit?

A. Every time I see her, in a wheelchair.

Q. Does she go shopping?

A. Somebody takes her. I suppose she does.

Q. If somebody takes her, she goes shopping?

A. I wouldn’t have a clue. Are you talking about now or five years
ago?

Q. I’m talking about now?

A. I wouldn’t have a clue, Mr Tedeschi.

Q. Does she go shopping?

A. I don’t know.

Q. No idea?
A. No idea.

Q. Do you know if somebody takes her shopping?

A. I imagine somebody does, but I don’t know who.
Q. Is there a car at her place?
A. Now?

Q. Yes.
A. I wouldn’t have a clue.

Q. Do you ever go over there?

A. Years ago, yes.

Q. Have you seen her in the last two years?

A. Yes.

Q. Has she come to see you?

A. Yes.

[page 157]

Q. How many times has she come to see you in the last three months?
A. I — she hasn’t come to see me in the last three months.

Q. The last twelve months?

A. Once or twice.

Q. Did someone bring her?

A. Yes.

Q. Was she in a wheelchair then?

A. Yes.
Q. Does your sister Shirley come to see you?
A. Yes.

Q. How often does Shirley come to see you?

A. All the time.

Q. Once a week?
A. At least.

Q. Sometimes more than once a week?

A. Used to, yes.

Q. And Chalinder, does she come and see you?

A. Never misses a week.

Q. Comes to see you regularly each weekend?

A. That’s right.

Q. Now, Mr Milat, going back to this pillowcase, if it is your mother’s,

have you got any explanation to give to the court how someone
has got one of your mother’s pillowslips, brought it to your home
and left it in your home with some sash cords in it?
A. No explanation at all.

Affirming the witness’s opportunity to have had contact with

a crucial exhibit
3.8 In this series of questions, the cross-examiner deploys a very
effective technique of establishing the strong likelihood that the
witness has had access to a piece of physical evidence (in this case,
 the pillowslip and the sash cord with blood on it) and then
confronting the witness with the ultimate significance of this. In this
example, Tedeschi skillfully establishes the strong likelihood or
opportunity that Milat had access to his mother’s old pillowslips
when he lived at Guildford

[page 158]

(where he lived at the time of the murders). He then confronts Milat

with its ultimate significance — that he used the bag of ropes during
the murder of Caroline Clarke and also in the ‘detaining for
advantage’ of Paul Onions. The threads that Tedeschi draws together
in a few well-focused questions create a very powerful and
compelling body of evidence for the jury.

Q. If it is the blood of Caroline Clarke in it, at the time that Caroline

Clarke disappeared, you were living at your mother’s place at
Guildford, weren’t you?
A. That’s right.

Q. Would you have had access to old discarded pillowslips of hers?

A. I wouldn’t know.

Q. Well, would you have had access to rags at her place?

A. I had my own rags there, yes.

Q. Would you have had access to rags that she had thrown out?
A. I don’t know if she’s ever thrown rags out.
Q. You see, I suggest to you that you used this bag of rope during the
course of the murder of Caroline Clarke?
A. No, I know nothing about it.

Q. And I suggest that you brought this bag of rope, this bag of sash
cords into your home at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. I’ve never seen it before.

Q. And I suggest that you used a bag of rope, a bag of dirty white
rope, during the attack on Mr Onions?
A. I never.

Q. Did you use any bag of rope during the attack on Mr Onions?
A. I’ve never had anything to do with Mr Onions.

Q. Do you have any explanation as to why the sash cord in this bag
is of the same kind as the sash cord that you admit are yours?
A. I have no explanation at all.

Q. So is this what you are saying, that someone has got access to
your home and put sash cord inside a pillowslip that just happens
to be the same kind as the sash cord that is yours in the garage —
is that what you’re saying?
A. I’ve got no explanation how it got there.

Q. Is that what you’re saying?

A. No, I’m not saying nothing. You’re saying it.

[page 159]
Q. Is this what you’re saying, that someone has come into your house
and left a bag of sash cords of the same kind as the sash cord that
is yours, in your garage?
A. No, I’m not saying that.

Q. Well, what are you saying?

A. I’m saying I don’t know at all how it got there.

Q. But do you admit that this sash cord that you don’t know anything
about is of the same kind as the sash cord in the garage, that is
yours?
A. Could you say that again?

Q. Yes. Do you acknowledge that the sash cord in this bag is of the
same kind as the sash cord in the garage, that is yours?
A. Could be.

Q. And do you have any explanation to give to the jury how such
similar sash cord in the pillowslip has come to be in your garage?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you have any explanation to give to the jury why the same sort
of sash cord is in your garage as is also in area A in a restraint
device — which we have called a leash device — at area A at the
Habschied/Neugebauer scene?
A. I have no — no explanation at all.

The importance of making linkages

3.9 Having fully developed the significance of the sash cord to the
 murder of Caroline Clarke and the charge of ‘detaining for
advantage’ Paul Onions, Tedeschi now builds on this to show that
the same kind of sash cord was also used in the ‘restraint device’ at
the Neugebauer/Habschied crime scene.10 Such linkages are highly
compelling and of particular significance when the allegation is that
the witness has been involved in a series of murders and employed a
similar modus operandi in his crimes. The cross-examiner achieves
this by emphatic and detailed analysis of the various component
parts of the restraint device. These were a leash, a sash cord, an
electrical tie and black electrical tape. All of these kinds of materials
were found in Milat’s garage at Eagle Vale. The type of sash cord was
identical;11 the type of electrical tie came from the same
manufacturer’s mold from a factory in Taiwan as ones found in
Milat’s garage and that were supplied to Milat’s employer, the RTA;
the electrical tape was indistinguishable in composition to tape
found in Milat’s garage,12 and the leash was typical of the various
kinds of straps that were found in the Cadpac bag in Milat’s
garage.13 It is

[page 160]

impressive how the cross-examiner emphasises these vital facts in an

outstanding sequence of confronting questions for which Milat has
no satisfactory answer. The focus here is on the sash cord and the
electrical ties.

Q. And I suggest to you that you used sash cord to make that restraint
device that was found at area A?
A. I never.
Q. You see, I suggest to you that it never occurred to you that
anybody would be able to trace sash cord back to you?
A. I wouldn’t know what they could do.

Q. Now, would you have a look please at exhibit FW. Exhibit FW is

four black plastic cable ties. (Exhibit FW handed to witness).
A. Right.

Insisting on a more precise answer than has just been given

3.10 The sequence of questions here is a good example of insisting on a
more precise answer by re-phrasing the question in a way that the
witness will commit an answer to. The theme here is effectively
developed by asking questions, the answers to which confirmed that
Milat possessed, and used, cable ties of the kind that had been used
in the restraint device.

Q. You have heard the evidence that they were found in your garage?
A. Yes.

Q. Are they yours?

A. If they were found in my garage I’d imagine they would be.

Q. Well, do you recall bringing any black plastic ties like this into
your garage?
A. I brought black plastic ties into the garage, yes.

Q. Where did you get them from?

A. They’d be from work.
Q. From your work when it was the RTA?
A. RTA, Readymix.

Q. From the CAD, Central Asphalt Depot — that’s where you got them
from?
A. If it was from Readymix, it’s not called the Central Asphalt Depot.

Q. All right, well, from your work?

A. Yes.

[page 161]

Q. What did you need these ties for?

A. At work?

Q. At your home?
A. The only reason — they’d be in my work bag or in my overalls or
something and you take them out and leave them there.

Q. So you didn’t have any use for them at your home?

A. Oh, sometimes.

Q. Like what?
A. If I needed something on my car, or something like that.

Q. Have you ever used them on your car?

A. Occasionally, yes.

Q. Whereabouts?
A. Just tidying up a bit of wire or something like that.

Q. You would have used large industrial ties, cable ties, like that on
your car?
A. Yes, just clip the end off.

Q. So you say you have actually used black plastic ties like this on
your car?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you have permission to remove those ties from your work?
A. Well, we just got them as we need them.

Q. But did you have permission to take them to your home to use on
your own car or whatever?
A. No.

Q. Now you have heard the evidence from a man called Mr Foster,
that these black plastic ties which are G series plastic ties come
from a particular machine in a particular factory called Giantlok in
Taiwan?
A. Yes.

Q. You have heard that evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I would like you to have a look please at a folder of

photographs behind tab E. Photograph 36, shows one of those ties
against the southern wall of the garage that is on the shelving,
right, it is on the shelving?
A. Yes.

[page 162]

Q. And the next photograph 37 shows two of those black plastic ties?
14

A. Yes.

Skillful use of a photo exhibit

3.11 Tedeschi shows this photograph of the location of some cable ties
found on a shelf in his garage, which Milat acknowledges. However,
when Tedeschi points out and asks Milat to acknowledge that the
same photograph also shows, in close proximity to the cable ties
(and on the shelf below), the green and white striped pillowslip,
Milat responds ‘I can’t see it’. Of course, the jurors all had photo
books containing this photograph and could see for themselves that
it was there, and that it is even more clearly shown in another
photograph in their photo books that they had for the purpose of the
trial.15 The witness’s answer would likely have sounded evasive and
indicative of an unwillingness to acknowledge even the patently
obvious. This is very skillful use of an exhibit by the cross-examiner.

Q. Just in the background underneath the shelf that the black plastic
ties are on, you can just see the green and white pillowcase. Do
you see that? You can see the paint tins with the green and white
pillowcase next to it. Do you agree with that?
A. I can’t see it.

Q. You can’t see the pillowcase?

A. Yes. 37, is it?

Q. (Counsel approached). You see just over there is the green and
white pillowcase?
A. Could be anything. I don’t know what it is.

Q. Would you go to page 40, another G series black plastic again on

the shelves?16
A. That’s right.

Q. So it is four G series black plastic ties which you got from your
work?
A. I imagine I did, yes.

Q. Would you have a look at this exhibit CA. You have heard
evidence that a G series black plastic tie was also attached to that
leash device in the forest. You have heard that evidence?
A. I probably did, yes.

[page 163]

Q. We are getting the G tie for you which is also a G series black
plastic tie. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury why
the same sort of black plastic ties that are in your garage as the
one that was in the forest on this leash device?
A. I wouldn’t have a clue.

Creating emphasis by confronting the witness with an exhibit

and asking for an explanation
3.12 Tedeschi now shows the cable tie itself to the witness. To emphasise
the important link being made, he asks the witness to offer an
explanation as to why the identical sort of cable tie as was used in the
restraint device was also found in his garage.

Q. You see the sash cord is the same as the sash cord in your garage.
Do you agree with that?
A. No.

Q. You have heard the evidence that the sash cord is the same kind as
the sash cord in your garage?
A. Sash cord is sash cord to me --

Q. Is the same kind as in your garage?

A. Sash cord, yes.

Q. It is the same kind of sash cord?

A. It’s sash cord. I don’t know if it is the same kind.

Q. Mr Gothard has given evidence that the sash cord in the forest was
discoloured white sash cord approximately 6 millimetres in
diameter containing cotton fibres, constructed of 12 outer strands
and a central core of 6 thinner strands, of which 4 contained a
colourless synthetic substrand similar to nylon 6.6, right, right?
A. Right, yeah.

Details at the ready

3.13 This and the following few questions demonstrate the importance of
the cross-examiner having details at his or her fingertips — in this
 case, the expert’s findings as to the exactness of the comparison of
the sash cords (those found in Milat’s garage compared with that
used in the restraint device from the Neugebauer/Habschied scene)
is a vital point, strikingly made here.

Q. Now sash cords numbers 1 and 2 from the pillowcase are exactly
the same discoloured white sash cord approximately 6 millimetres
in diameter containing cotton fibres and constructed of 12 outer
strands and a central core of 6 thinner strands of which 4
contained a colourless synthetic substrand similar to nylon 6.6,
right?
A. Right.

[page 164]

Q. So you agree that sash cord that was found in your garage is
similar in those respects to the sash cord in the forest?
A. Similar, yes.

Q. And you agree that the black plastic tie, cable tie, found in the
forest, is of the same G series as the black plastic ties found in your
garage?
A. Well, they’re the same as black plastic ties.

Q. Of the same sort both being G series?

A. All I’d say is they’re black plastic ties. I would not have an idea.

Dealing with a ‘hedging’ answer

3.14 When the witness appears to be hedging, as here, it is often
 appropriate and effective to be persistent and to keep pointing out,
and insisting that the witness confirm, the obvious reality of the facts
in evidence — as is done most effectively here in relation to the cable
ties.

Q. (Witness shown black plastic ties). Do you see there is a G number

on them, G1, G11, G8, G10?
A. Yes. I can’t see it but --

Q. Will you accept that?

A. Yes.

Q. And the one in the forest had a G number as well. Do you have
any explanation for why the same sort of black plastic ties are
found in your garage?
A. I don’t know. I know where I got this from. I don’t know where that
one in the bush came from.

Q. Do you say it is just an awful coincidence that the same sash cord
as in the forest is in your garage and the same black plastic ties in
the forest are in your garage?
A. Same black plastic ties?

Q. The same sort of black plastic ties are in your garage as in the
forest, you say that is just an awful coincidence?
A. Well I know I got these from work. I don’t know where that one in
the bush would have come from.

Q. Well, I show you the one from the bush (shown). That is the sash
cord from the bush, that is the black tape from the bush, here is the
 black plastic tie from the bush (shown). You see it also has a G
number on it, G3?
A. Well, I accept that. I think every black tie has got that on it.

[page 165]

Building up to the point of showing an important exhibit

3.15 The cross-examiner has by this stage shown the witness the cable ties
found in his garage, and questioned him about the sash cords found
there. Now Tedeschi very effectively emphasises the point by
showing Milat the actual restraint device found in the forest17 and
points out the identical nature of its components. Only then does he
ask the witness whether he can offer any explanation for the
coincidence. No explanation is offered. This is meticulous cross-
examination and use of an exhibit. The careful sequence in which
the questions are asked, and the timing of the showing of the exhibit
itself, is artful and highly effective jury communication.

Q. Mr Milat, have you got any explanation apart from sheer awful
coincidence that the same black plastic ties being in your garage
as the one in the forest and the same sort of sash cord from the
forest also being in your garage?
A. I’ve got no explanation at all.

Q. I suggest to you that you were at the Habschied/Neugebauer

death scene and were involved in those deaths?
A. I was not.
‘Punctuation’
3.16 This and the following question punctuates the end of this line of
cross-examination about the restraint device, and the point of the
questioning is made very clear by these final two questions before
the cross-examiner moves on to the next topic (the blue bag and
tent). It is important for a cross-examiner to punctuate the themes
being pursued in such a way — it is rather like a concluding
paragraph to a submission, tying off the point before moving on to
the next. This assists the jury to understand the ultimate point of the
evidence just elicited, and to know that the cross-examiner is
moving on to something else.

Q. And that you left the leash device in the forest never thinking that it
could ever be traced to you?
A. No.

Q. Now, when you drive your car into the garage do you park it very
close to the shelving against the back wall?
A. It’s a couple of feet off.

Q. So that you can get in and get access to the shelving I suppose?
A. No, I think because of a lot of stuff in front of it.

Q. How long has that stuff been there in front of it?

A. Probably, I don’t know, as long as I’ve been in there.

[page 166]
 Would you have a look please again behind tab E photograph
Q. 10. You see that blue bag and what appears to be some camping
equipment inside it?
A. Yes.

Confronting the witness with evidence of the presence of

property of one of the victims in the witness’s garage — the
blue bag and tent
3.17 Tedeschi here moves on to show the witness a photograph18 of the
interior of Milat’s garage, in which one can clearly see a blue bag that
contained items of camping equipment, including a blue Vau de
Hogan brand tent that belonged to one of the murder victims,
Simone Schmidl. Milat responds by saying that he can’t recall ever
seeing the bag — a proposition that is difficult to believe. After a
series of answers that suggest that the witness is at some pains to
assert that he would not necessarily have noticed the blue bag in the
location it was in, Tedeschi asks him if he is asserting that it must
have been ‘planted’ there by someone — a proposition that the
witness embraces. Tedeschi then ‘relates back’ by asking Milat
whether he thinks it was put there by the ‘same person’ who ‘could
have planted all the other items in your house’, to which the witness
replies that he has ‘no idea’. The notion of someone having planted
such a large and growing number of items in Milat’s house becomes
more and more incredible with the adoption of the same explanation
for each new item. The cross-examiner is effectively demonstrating
the absurdity of the witness’s explanation; the witness, perhaps
sensing this, then asserts that he is not saying it was planted. The
witness’s apparent reluctance to ‘see’ the blue bag in the photograph
was telling, and the cross-examiner, aware of this reluctance to see
the patently obvious, keeps pressing the point effectively.
Q. Now did you ever see that blue bag in your garage?
A. I can’t recall it, no.

Q. I show you the blue bag and its contents now (shown exhibit FT).
Have you ever seen any of those items?
A. Never.

Q. Do you think that if — that blue tent is a Vau De Hogan tent that
belonged to Simone Schmidl. Do you think that if that blue bag
and tent inside it had have been in your garage you would have
seen it, you would have noticed it?
A. Depends where it is.

Q. Well what about in the location where it is photographed in

photograph 10?
A. If it was like that I suppose it would be, I would see it.

[page 167]

Confronting with a photograph to force the answer

3.18 Tedeschi now shows the witness the photograph showing the blue
Salewa brand bag in situ on a shelf in Milat’s garage.19 The contents,
which include Schmidl’s Vau de Hogan brand tent, can be seen in
Photo 54.

Q. If you go back to page 3 — perhaps if I take you back to page 10

first. On page 10 can you see that the blue bag is next to the back
wheel of a lawnmower?
A. That’s right.

Q. Can you see the lawnmower there?

A. Yes.

Q. See, it is right next to the back wheely, isn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. And just to the right of the blue tent on another shelf there is a red,
white and black item which could be a generator or something like
that?
A. Yes.

Q. That is yours?
A. I have got a generator, yes.

Q. Bearing in mind the position of the lawnmower and the generator

would you go to page 3?20
A. Yes.

Q. And again very close to that coloured rag can you see underneath
that coloured rag there is the lawnmower?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you see the generator on the shelving behind the lawnmower?
A. Yes.

Q. And just to the left of the generator can you just see the blue tent?
A. No.
Q. Can you see some blue?
A. No.

[page 168]

Good use of photo exhibit that the jury also has and can
look at to follow the questioning21
3.19 The witness appears to be demonstrating surprising reluctance to
acknowledge that he would have been able to see the blue bag on the
shelf in his garage. While it is certainly mostly obscured in Photo
29, its top portion can be seen: see close-up in Photo 53.

Q. Well let me point it out to you?

A. That’s right.

Q. (Counsel approached). Now can you see the generator?

A. That’s right.

Q. Just on the other side of that shelf can you see a little bit of blue?
A. No. It looks — I can’t see it there — you can’t see blue there.

Q. You can’t see a piece of blue just to the right of that dividing shelf?
A. Something’s there, it could be blue.

Q. From the car one would be able to see in that area the shelving
much more easily?
A. Yeah — I don’t know.
Q. Well the position that the photographer who has taken photograph
3 is in, you can’t really see into that area of shelving next to the
generator very well, can you?
A. That’s right.

Q. But if you are in your car you would be able to see it very clearly?
A. I could not say that.

Q. You agree that photograph 3 shows the shelving in its original

condition prior to the police search?
A. I could not agree to that at all.

Q. See, I suggest to you that from your car you would clearly be able
to see this tent, which is shown in photograph 10?
A. I seriously doubt it at all.

Q. Why is that?
A. Well, if I am in me car that means me bike would be in the shed
there and that’s where the bike goes, in the middle.

Q. Where does the bike go?

A. Next to the car.

[page 169]

Q. Next to the car. What, on the side of the car?

A. Yes, right next to it.

Q. On the left side — on the driver’s side or passenger’s side?

A. Got to be the driver’s side.

Q. The driver’s side. When you drive your car into the garage would
you be able to see the area of shelving where that blue tent is?
A. I have no idea. I doubt it.

Q. How do you think that this tent and blue bag came to be in your
garage?
A. Somebody obviously put it there.

Q. Do you think somebody might have planted it there?

A. Well they must have. I never put it there.

Q. Do you think it is the same person who could have planted all the
other items in your home?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you have any knowledge when this tent may have been
planted in your home?
A. I’m not saying it was planted there at all.

Q. Do you have any knowledge when it may have come into your
home?
A. No.

Q. Of course, your sister Shirley also used this garage?

A. Correct.

Q. She also would be in a position to say if the tent was there and if
so when it came into the house?
A. If she knows about it, yes.

Q. Where does Shirley live now?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Does she live in Sydney?

A. Campbelltown, Guildford.

Q. And she comes to visit you regularly?

A. That’s right.

Q. And she is well, is she?

A. I believe so.

Q. She is in good health?

A. Yes.

[page 170]

Q. Can you think of any reason why she would not be able to come to
court and give evidence?22
A. I wouldn’t — couldn’t think of one reason.

Q. Wrapped around that tent was a Compact-o-Mat band, exhibit

BO, you have seen that Compact-o-Mat band?
A. Pardon?

Making and emphasising powerful linkages — the Compact-

o-mat band23
3.20 Around the Vau de Hogan brand tent owned by Simone Schmidl
and found with other items inside the blue Salewa brand bag in
Milat’s garage was a Compact-o-mat brand band for tying down
equipment. The evidence established that Simone Schmidl had two
such bands with her camping kit. Milat denies having any
knowledge as to how the band came to be in his garage. Tedeschi
then reminds him of the evidence that established that a second
Compact-o-mat band had been found in the forest, around the head
of Simone’s body. Emphasising this important link, Tedeschi asks
the witness for an explanation as to how an identical band came to
be in his garage. He has no explanation. Again, as with the restraint
device, Tedeschi’s approach to the questioning is very effective in
demonstrating that items in Milat’s possession are identical to
certain items found in the forest. He has also subtly introduced the
similarity of modus operandi in that the restraint device at the
Neugebauer/Habschied site, and the Compact-o-mat strap found
around Simone Schmidl’s head, indicate the likely use of restraining
devices in both instances.

Q. Do you recall seeing that? Do you recall seeing the Compact-o-Mat

band?
A. In court here?

Q. Have a look at photograph number 18 behind tab E?

A. Yes.

Q. You see the yellow and purple band around the tent?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to how that may have come into
your garage?
A. No idea at all.

Q. Evidence has been given that an identical band was found around
the head of Simone Schmidl. Do you have any explanation as to
how an identical band to the one around her head came to be in
your garage around her tent?
A. I have no explanation at all. I wouldn’t have anything --

[page 171]

Q. I suggest to you that you were involved in the death of Simone

Schmidl and that is how these items came to be in your garage?
A. I had nothing to do with it.

A ‘punctuation’ question
3.21 Here, the cross-examiner is tying off the theme of the preceding line
of questions, before moving on to the next topic.

Q. You told us that you had used a camera that was found by the
police. Do you remember giving that evidence, that you had used
a camera?
A. Yes.

Carefully laying the groundwork for confronting the witness

with powerful evidence — Caroline Clarke’s camera and
Benetton top
3.22 The evidence established that Caroline Clarke had an Olympus ‘Trip
S’ camera among her travelling kit, and the prosecution had
tendered in evidence a photograph of Caroline holding the camera,
taken during her travels. An identical camera24 was found by police
in a kitchen drawer at the Eagle Vale premises. The prosecution had
also established that the serial number on the camera indicated it
had been manufactured in Malaysia and shipped to the United
Kingdom in 1990 where it was sold. Evidence from the Department
of Immigration also established that Milat had not been overseas at
or since that time. Milat had given evidence that he had used this
camera and Tedeschi now asks questions to confirm that Milat had
used the camera often. He then asks whether this was the camera
that Milat had used to take the two photographs of his girlfriend,
Chalinder Hughes, who in the photographs was wearing a Benetton
brand jersey identical to one that had been owned by Caroline
Clarke. Evidence obtained by police from Benetton established that
very few Benetton jerseys of the same colour had ever been sold in
Australia. The photographs were among the many found on a shelf
in the lounge room at Eagle Vale. These photo albums were a very
rich source of evidence for the prosecution. There was a date written
on the back of the photograph in Milat’s handwriting. Ms Hughes
later gave evidence in the defence case in which she claimed to have
worn the top only on that one occasion, and that she had grabbed it
from a pile of ironing in the laundry at Eagle Vale, assuming that it
belonged to Ivan’s sister Shirley. She claimed never to have seen it
again. However, the Crown had evidence that established that as at
the date written on the photograph, the construction of the home at
Eagle Vale had not been completed and the house was not being
lived in.

[page 172]
 When questioned about where the camera came from, Milat says
that he thinks that his sister Shirley gave the camera to him. Again,
Tedeschi makes powerful linkages with the evidence of the camera
and the Benetton top when he asks Milat the question, ‘Do you think
that it was probably that camera that you used to take the
photographs of Chalinder Hughes wearing the Benetton top?’. The
witness’s answer, ‘I couldn’t really say’, does not assist the witness.
Soon after asking these questions, the cross-examiner suggests to the
witness that he was involved in the murder of Caroline Clarke. This
is an excellent example of confronting the witness with powerful
evidence that the witness cannot explain, and can only deny, and the
questions remain very focused on the critical issues.

Q. (Exhibit EC handed to witness). Was it the camera that was found

by the police in a drawer in the kitchen? Is that the camera you say
you had used?
A. I don’t know where the camera was found.

Q. Was it that camera in front of you?

A. If that’s the camera from my place I probably have used it, yes.

Q. Exhibit EC?
A. Yes, it looks similar to it, yes, but --

Q. Where have you used that camera?

A. Taking photos?

Q. Yes.
A. All over — all over the place.
Q. Did you use that camera to take the two photographs of Chalinder
Hughes in which she is wearing the Benetton top?
A. I couldn’t tell you if it was or not. I don’t know.

Q. Have you used any other camera apart from that one since April
1992?
A. I could have, yes.

Q. What other cameras have you used?

A. Whoever has got a camera.

Q. Do you have any camera of your own, apart from that one?
A. No.

Q. Do you consider that camera to be your own?

A. No.

Q. Whose camera is it?

A. Well, I assume it was Shirley’s.

[page 173]

Q. You assumed that that was Shirley’s?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s because you and Shirley were the only two people in that
house?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you find it, the first time?
A. What do you mean ‘find it’?

Q. When you used it the first time, where was it?

A. I think Shirley give it to me.

Q. Shirley gave it to you?

A. Yes.

Q. So you say that the first time that you came in contact with that
camera was when Shirley gave it to you?
A. I’d imagine so, yes.

Q. And do you think that it was probably that camera that you used to
take the photographs of Chalinder Hughes wearing the Benetton
top?
A. I couldn’t really say.

Q. Well, what other camera might it have been?

A. Could have been anybody’s.

Q. You don’t remember?

A. No.

Q. See, evidence has been given that that camera was manufactured
in Malaysia and then sent to the United Kingdom for sale?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are photographs showing Caroline Clarke in possession

of an identical kind of camera. You have seen those photos?
A. I’ve see photos with the camera, yes.

Q. Did you take that camera from the property of Caroline Clarke?
A. No.

Q. I suggest to you that you were involved in the death of Caroline

Clarke?
A. I wasn’t.

Q. In late April 1992 you went away to Yass, didn’t you?

A. Oh yes.

[page 174]

Q. With your work?

A. I probably did, yes.

Q. You went away with the road profiler?

A. Yes.

Q. And you took some photographs when you were in Yass, is that
right?
A. Yes.

Q. And you put the date on the back of each of those photographs?
A. Yes.

Q. And those dates are in the last week or so of April 1992?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you take those photographs with that camera, exhibit EC?
A. I don’t believe so.

Probing, pressing and underscoring the significance of

evidence by combining it with another significant and related
piece of evidence
3.23 Tedeschi probes the witness’s answers by asking Milat what other
camera he may have used to take other photographs that he agreed
he had taken in Yass in 1992. Vaguely, Milat states that he believed
he used ‘his own’ camera, but, when pressed, is unable to describe
what sort of camera it was. Tedeschi then very effectively combines
the evidence of the camera and the sash cord (both items relevant to
Caroline Clarke) and asks the witness to explain how they both came
to be in his house.

Q. Why is that?
A. I — I don’t really know what kind of camera. I could have or I
couldn’t have. I don’t know.

Q. Is it possible that you took those photographs at Yass with that

camera?
A. I don’t believe so. I think I had my own camera at that time, 92.

Q. What sort was it?

A. Oh, just a camera.

Q. Do you know what sort it was?

A. I can’t really recall. It was a camera — a camera. It didn’t look like
this.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury as to how there
was in your home at [XX XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] a camera
sold in England of the same kind as the one owned by Caroline
Clarke and also blood on a sash cord consistent with

[page 175]

having come from a child of the Clarkes — do you have any

explanation to give to the jury?
A. About what?

Q. As to how those coincidences came about?

A. I have no explanation at all.

Q. Would you have a look please at exhibits FQ and AG. Exhibit FQ

and exhibit AG are two sleeping bags. (Exhibits FQ and AG
handed to witness.) Both of those were in a white plastic bag in the
walk-in wardrobe of bedroom 1 at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale].
Do you have any knowledge as to how they came to be there?
A. No idea.

Confronting the witness with incriminating items of evidence

and probing — sleeping bags found in bedroom 1 at Eagle
Vale
3.24 In bedroom 1, in a white plastic bag in the wardrobe, police found
two sleeping bags. One was a Salewa brand sleeping bag,25 in respect
of which the defence made an admission that the only reasonable
inference that could be drawn was that this had been in the
possession of Simone Schmidl immediately prior to her death. The
second sleeping bag, a green one,26 had been identified by Deborah
Everist’s brother as the very sleeping bag that he had owned and
given to his sister Deborah to use for her trip. He gave evidence of
having purchased this very bag from an ‘Aussie Disposals’ store in
Frankston, Victoria.
Tedeschi questions Milat closely about the sleeping bags. Milat
asserts he has never seen Schmidl’s Salewa sleeping bag before. He also
asserts that he has never seen the green sleeping bag in his home.
Tedeschi then confronts the witness with a photograph from one of the
albums seized by police, showing Milat holding what clearly appears to
be a green sleeping bag. The witness seems very reluctant to
acknowledge that this is what he is carrying — ‘I’m holding something’,
he says. Of course, the jury at this moment have before them their
photo books and can see for themselves what the photograph shows.
Eventually, the witness acknowledges that both items are ‘green’.
Tedeschi then asks the witness to demonstrate holding the actual
sleeping bag exhibit in the same way as it is in the photo. Tedeschi then
asks a series of questions about the description of the sleeping bag in
the photograph that suggest that it is identical to the one Milat has
been shown. The witness’s answers seem to display a marked
reluctance to acknowledge the obvious points of similarity. This
technique of comparing items through questions to the witness is very
effective advocacy. The reader will recall a similar approach was taken
in relation to the gun parts painted camouflage colours.
 [page 176]

Q. Bedroom 1, of course, is Shirley’s room?

A. That’s right.

Q. This is the same Shirley who regularly visits you?

A. That’s right.

Q. The same Shirley who lived with you at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale]?
A. Yes.

Q. Your sister?
A. That’s right.

Q. You get along well with Shirley?

A. Yes.

Q. She is very supportive of you?

A. Yes.

Q. You have always got along well?

A. Yes.

Q. Is she the person who holds the family together?

A. I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Q. Do you know how they came to be in the walk-in wardrobe in

Shirley’s bedroom?
A. I have no idea.

Q. One of those, the Salewa sleeping bag, has been admitted to be

Simone Schmidl’s. Do you have any explanation as to how Simone
Schmidl’s sleeping bag came to be in your home?
A. I’ve never seen it before.

Q. The other one is a green sleeping bag which has been identified
as having been in the possession of Deborah Everist and belonged
to her brother. Do you have any explanation as to how Ms
Everist’s sleeping bag came to be in your home?
A. I’ve never seen it in my home.

Q. See, I suggest to you that you were involved in the deaths of both
Simone Schmidl and Deborah Everist?
A. I wasn’t.

[page 177]

Q. Would you have a look please at this photograph which is in

folder 2 behind tab D, photograph number 3. (Shown.) That is a
photograph which shows you holding a green sleeping bag?
A. I’m holding something.

Q. You agree it is a sleeping bag?

A. No, I don’t agree. It could be.

Q. Have a look at the next photograph, page 4.27 Do you agree that
is a sleeping bag?
A. Could be.

Q. Do you agree it is a sleeping bag that looks very similar to the

green sleeping bag that is one of those exhibits in front of you?
A. No, I can’t agree to it, but.

Q. Well, would you like to have a look at the sleeping bag?

A. Which one?

Q. The green one?

A. They are both green.

Q. Exhibit AG. Could you hold that up in a way that is — I would like
you to stand up and hold it in a way that is as similar as possible
to the photograph. (Complies.) Do you agree that in the
photograph there appears to be some black around the zipper?
A. Oh well --

Q. Have a look at page 4, if you would like to.

A. I can’t see the zipper. I’m assuming.

Q. Does there appear to be some black around it?

A. There is something up there.

Q. Does the green appear to be the same, similar?

A. Similar, I suppose.

Q. Does the inside appear to be a creamy sort of material?

A. I tend to say white, but if you say cream.
Q. Does it appear to be a similar sort of sleeping bag to the one that
is exhibit AG?
A. I couldn’t tell you.

Q. Does it look similar?

A. I suppose it is. I don’t know.

[page 178]

Q. Do you know whose sleeping bag the one in the photograph is?
A. No, it looks like I was carrying it for somebody.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT

Q. Mr Milat, the Cadpac bag that was found by the police in your
garage contained this Arno multi-coloured strap. In that Cadpac
bag you have told us that you had gun parts, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Order and sequencing of questions

3.25 Reference has previously been made to the Cadpac bag found in
Milat’s garage at Eagle Vale. Inside the bag were found, inter alia, a
number of rifle straps. Tedeschi asks Milat whether these are his, and
Milat acknowledges that they are. Tedeschi then asks him about the
Arno brand multi-coloured strap also found in the bag, in relation to
which Milat had made an admission, for the purpose of the trial, that
the only reasonable inference was that this strap had been in the
possession of Simone Schmidl at or immediately before her death.
Milat states that he has ‘no idea’ how this strap came to be in the
 same bag as his rifle straps. He denies ever putting the Arno strap in
the bag. Tedeschi then returns again to the suggestion (which is now
starting to sound absurd) that someone else came into Milat’s home
and ‘put a strap into a bag that you just happen to keep straps in?’.
Milat answers, ‘I suppose that’s what happened’. The reader will see
that the sequence of these questions has been skillfully constructed:
first, the witness is asked to confirm it is his bag of straps; second,
the presence of Schmidl’s strap in the bag is raised; third, the witness
is asked whether this has likely been put there by someone else
(which proposition the witness agrees with) and then the cross-
examiner frames the penultimate question in the sequence which
exposes the absurdity of the position the witness is taking (that
someone else had put the strap there); and fourth, the cross-
examiner rounds off the line of questioning with an inevitable
conclusion put by way of a suggestion: ‘I suggest to you that it came
into that garage because you put it there?’. The witness’s answer, ‘I
never put it there’, seems truly hollow against this clearly explained
background. Having made this forceful point, the cross-examiner
keeps up momentum by moving straight on to the next item (the
various items of shirt material used for various purposes).

Q. Is this correct that in fact you had some gun straps?

A. I don’t know.

Q. (Counsel approached) I show you the Cadpac bag,28 exhibit GB

and the contents of the bag (shown). Do you agree that there are
some rifle straps?
A. Yeah, it looks like it is a rifle strap.

[page 179]
Q. Are they your rifle straps?
A. I don’t know. They were in my bag so, you know, could be.

Q. Do you assume that they are yours?

A. Oh yeah.

Q. If they are in the Cadpac bag.

A. Yes, would be mine, yes.

Q. Also found in that bag was this Arno multi-coloured strap. Do you
know how this Arno multi-coloured strap came to be with the other
two straps in the Cadpac bag?
A. No idea.

Q. I think you said in your evidence in chief that if you had seen it in
there you would have noticed because of its colour?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you put that in to the Cadpac bag?

A. No.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury as to how that strap came to be in the Cadpac bag?
A. I have no idea how it came to be in the Cadpac bag.

Q. Do you say someone else has put it in the Cadpac bag?

A. They must have. I never.

Q. Is this what happened, someone has come into your home and put
a strap into a bag that you just happened to keep straps in?
A. I suppose that’s what happened.

Q. Have you ever used a strap like this, anything like it?
A. No.

Q. Now it has been admitted that this Arno strap belonged to Simone
Schmidl. Do you have any explanation to give to the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury as to how Simone Schmidl’s Arno strap came
to be in your garage?
A. I have no idea.

Q. I suggest to you that it came into that garage because you put it
there?
A. I never put it there.

Q. I have already shown you exhibit JA, a piece of material from

around the bolt in the grey locker. Do you agree that it looks to be
some blouse material, perhaps possibly a woman’s blouse
material?
A. I would not have no idea what --

[page 180]

Q. Does it look to be an upper garment either a shirt or a blouse?

Have a look at it, you see the collar there and the shoulder patch
across the back. You see it?
A. Yes.

Undermining by comparing items that the witness agrees are

his with similar items that the witness denies are his
3.26 In the following series of questions, Tedeschi compares the manner
of wrapping rifle bolts in shirt material between the bolt found in
Milat’s grey locker at Guildford and the Ruger bolt found in the wall
cavity.29

Q. Does it look to be either a shirt or a blouse?

A. Could be either I suppose.

Q. But it is a shirt or a blouse, is that right?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Have a look at it Mr Milat, doesn’t appear to be trousers, is it?

A. No.

Q. You see the collar on it?

A. Yes.

Q. You see the tag?

A. Yes.

Q. You see the piece across the back of the shoulder?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree it is either a shirt or a blouse?

A. Could be, yes.

Q. Do you agree that it is a shirt or a blouse?

A. It is one or the other.

Q. Now, located around the Ruger bolt was a piece of material which
is part of exhibit EV also from a shirt. Do you agree that is from a
shirt?30
A. A shirt or a blouse.

Q. Does it look to be a men’s business shirt. Have a look?

A. Well --

[page 181]

Q. Does it look to be from a men’s business shirt?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Have a close look at it. Do you see the collar?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the shoulder piece?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it appear to you that it is most likely a man’s shirt?

A. I have no idea.

Q. No idea at all?
A. No. It’s some sort of a shirt, I agree with that.

Q. Do you agree there is also the collar and part of the shoulder
across the back?
A. You’re telling me, yes.

Q. Well have a look. Do you agree — I am not asking you to agree

with anything I say, you have a look for yourself. Do you agree it
has got a label?
A. Yes.

Q. And it has got a collar and it has got part of the piece across the
back of the shoulder?
A. All right.

Q. Do you agree?
A. Yes.

Q. Now I would like to show you a piece of shirt material from around
the face of Joanne Walters, piece number three (shown). Do you
agree that is a piece of shirt material?
A. It could be, yes.

Making connections between different items of evidence by

examining their details
3.27 Tedeschi now draws out similarities in the two examples of shirt
cloth used for wrapping the rifle bolts, with the cloth used as part of
a gag on Joanne Walters.31

Q. You can see there is part of the collar that has been cut off?
A. It could be, yes.

[page 182]
Q. And also part of the piece that goes across the back of the
shoulder?
A. Well you’re telling me, yes.

Q. Well do you agree?

A. I don’t know. I’m not a shirt — it looks like a bit of rag to me.

Q. Just have a look. Can you see it appears to be a piece of shirt

material, possibly a men’s shirt. Do you agree?
A. I can’t agree to that. It probably is but I don’t know. I’m saying I
don’t know.

Q. It probably is?
A. You’re telling me, I’ll agree with you.

Q. Do you agree that it also contains the collar and part of the
shoulder, back of the shoulder?
A. I don’t know. It looks like a bit of rag to me. It probably is a shirt.

Q. Do you agree that it contains the collar, around the back and part
of the shoulder?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know what it is.

Q. Have a look at that material and you see where the arm is?
A. Here’s the arm, is it?

Q. Let me show you. I am suggesting to you that this here is a short

sleeved shirt, a short sleeved men’s shirt, that is the arm there.
A. Yes.
Q. This is the collar here and that is the back of the shoulder.
A. Rightio.

Q. Do you agree with that?

A. Could be, yes.

Q. Do you agree that it has been cut straight down the middle of the
back. Do you agree in fact it has cut the label in half?
A. Righteo.

Q. Do you agree that it is consistent with being a Gloweave shirt?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Can you see ‘AVE’ on the label?

A. Well all right.

Q. Have you ever seen a Gloweave shirt before?

A. I probably have.

Q. Do you know if the way they write their label is similar to that?
A. AVE?

[page 183]

Q. Yes.
A. I wouldn’t have a clue.

Q. Let us have a look at these four shirts. The first one is from around
the bolt in the locker at Guildford where you used to live. Do you
 agree that it has been cut straight down the middle of the back
cutting the label, if not in half, almost in half?
A. Looks like it.

Making important connections by aggregating and unifying

evidence
3.28 Here the cross-examiner, having examined the details of the pieces
of shirt material, draws together important common aspects of a
number of separate pieces of shirt material — they are all cut or torn
in the same way, so as to comprise the collar and a portion of the
back shoulder portion of the shirt, cut or torn down the middle
about where the label would be (suggesting they came from a
commercial supplier of rags). One piece was found around the rifle
bolt found in the locker at Guildford, one was found around the
Ruger parts found in the wall cavity at Eagle Vale, and the third was
taken from Joanne Walter’s face, and thought to have been part of a
gag.

Q. Now do you agree that the second piece of material from around
the Ruger parts also appears to be a shirt which has been again
cut or torn straight down the middle of the back?
A. Well --

Q. Does it appear to be?

A. It doesn’t look like that. I don’t know what you want me to say,
agree with you?

Q. Does it appear to be cut or torn straight down the middle, down

the middle of the back?
A. Seems to be there, yes.

Q. And the third one from around the face of Joanne Walters, does
that also appear to be straight down the middle of the back either
cut or torn, cutting the label almost in half.
A. Could be, yes.

Q. Have you ever owned a Gloweave shirt?

A. I could have.

Q. Incidentally what size shirt do you take?

A. 38 to 45, that’s what I’ve got now.

Q. 38 to 45?
A. Yes.

[page 184]

Q. Which of those sizes do you usually take?

A. I never took much notice. I just know what I’ve got now.

Q. Do you sometimes wear a size 41?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Could you have a look at this exhibit please. (Exhibit HZ shown to

witness.) Have you ever seen an item like that?32
A. Pardon?

Q. Have you ever seen an item like that?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a rag like that?

A. Just a bit of rag.

Q. Have any of the rags that you have taken from your work been like
that?
A. No.

Q. (Approached.) I show you exhibit CC, which is a piece of pink

cloth found at area A. Would you have a look at that piece of
cloth please. Does that cloth look as though it has been a rag at
some stage?
A. It looks like a bit of rag to me.

Q. Have you ever had rags like that?

A. No.

Q. Never ever?
A. It’s a bit of rag to me.

Q. A bit of rag to you.

I show you exhibit CU.33 (Shown.) You see a piece of pink cloth
there. Have you ever had a rag like that?
A. No.

Q. Would you have a look please at these two pieces of rag material
(exhibit CM handed to witness).34 I don’t ask you to open them up
unless you particularly want to. Do they look like rags that you
have ever had?
A. No.

[page 185]

(The Crown Prosecutor asked to be handed exhibit NC.)

Q. While that is being done, I show you this item which is exhibit CT
(shown).35 Does that appear to be a singlet to you?
A. I suppose so, yes.

Q. Does it look as though it has been cut down the back?

A. Something, yes.

Q. Have you ever had a rag like that?

A. Not that I can recall, no.

Q. I take MFI 113 which is part of exhibit NC. Would you have a
look at this piece of material, being a Palace Lantern brand
garment, made in China, size 2. Evidence has been given that that
came from the Groening bag. Have you seen that?
A. Yes.

Importance of making linkages

3.29 This Palace Lantern brand garment, found in the Groening bag, was
cut in a similar way to some of the other rag items being referred to
in this sequence of questions, and the cross-examiner asks Milat if
this was similar to the kind of rags he had in the Groening bag.
Q. Is that the sort of rag that you had in the Groening bag?
A. Very similar, yes.

Q. The sort of rag that you got from your work?

A. That’s right.

Q. Do you see the way that has been cut down the back?
A. Yes.

Q. Were a lot of the rags that you got from work cut down the back
like that?
A. I never noticed.

Q. Were they cut?

A. Cut, ripped. I never noticed. They were just into squares.

Q. Were there a lot of what appeared to be children’s items in the

rags?
A. I wouldn’t have had any idea.

[page 186]

Q. Were there a lot of items of female wear in the bag?

A. I’d have no idea.

Q. Would you have a look please at the Loquat Valley t-shirt, which is
exhibit JV (shown).36 Do you agree that this t-shirt was also cut in a
very similar way to this one here? Do you agree that it has been cut
in a similar way?
A. It’s cut down the middle, yes.

Q. Have you had rags of that kind, the similar sort of rags as the
Loquat Valley t-shirt?
A. I have no idea.

Q. See, I suggest to you that all of those rags that have just been
shown to you are rags that have come from your home?
A. All them rags that you just showed me?

A focusing question — to summarise and put the conclusion

the cross-examiner seeks to draw from this line of questioning
3.30 This is the concluding question that the preceding questions have
ultimately led to. Again, one can see the careful groundwork and the
drawing together of similarities and connections that the cross-
examiner has done to get to this point.

Q. All the rags that have been shown to you, that is the rag from the
grey locker, the rag from around the Ruger part, the gag from
around Joanne Walters, the gag from around Neugebauer, exhibit
CM, the material from near Anja Habschied, exhibits CC and CU,
singlet number 2 exhibit CT, the Loquat Valley t-shirt and the piece
of hospital gown exhibit HZ all come from one of the homes that
you have lived at, or the other — be it Guildford or [XXXXXXXX]
Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. I’d have no idea.

Q. So they could have come from your home?

A. I wouldn’t have no idea.
Q. They could have come from your home?
A. I’d have no idea.

Q. Take for example DN which is the gag material from around

Joanne Walters. Could that have come from your home?
A. I wouldn’t imagine so. I have no idea.

Q. If it did come from your home, do you have any knowledge how it
came to be in the forest?
A. I have no idea. I wouldn’t know where it come from.

[page 187]

Q. (Exhibit GL handed to Crown Prosecutor.) Included in exhibit GL

are two photographs of Chalinder Hughes taken at the beach or
near the water, anyway. Have you seen those?
A. I see them now.

Q. You have seen them before, haven’t you?

A. (No answer).

Q. You have seen those photographs before, haven’t you?

A. In court here?

Q. Don’t those photographs come from your photographs at

[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. Probably did.

Q. Well, did you take those photographs?

A. I probably did, yes.

Q. Well, you probably did or you did?

A. Well I did. I thought you were asking did I see them here in court.
You’ve got to be a bit pacific.

Be wary of an answer qualified by ‘probably’

3.31 It is important for the cross-examiner to be wary of answers
qualified by a word such as ‘probably’. Here the cross-examiner asks
a series of questions insisting on a more definite answer, which is
eventually forthcoming.

Q. Did you take those photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. So there is no ‘probably’ about it. You did actually take them?

A. Well, I don’t know if they are exactly the same photos. You seem
to have, you know, have a lot of photos here.

Q. I’m asking you about the photographs showing Chalinder Hughes

wearing the Benetton top.37 Did you take those photographs?
A. Yes.

Q. Now whereabouts did you take them?

A. Down near Stanwell — a beach down near Stanwell Park.

[page 188]
Q. Was that in the Royal National Park?
A. I don’t know if it’s the National Park or not.

Q. How did you come to be there?

A. Well, we just went there.

Q. Where did you go from?

A. Oh, I imagine we went from home.

Q. Which home?
A. [XXXXXXXX] [Eagle Vale], I suppose.

Q. And how did you get to this seaside area?

A. Probably by car.

Q. By car? By bike? Do you remember?

A. I’m not real sure. I’d say by car.

Q. Do you remember Chalinder wearing this green and white

Benetton top?
A. No.

Q. No memory of it?
A. No.

Q. You don’t deny that she was wearing a green and white Benetton
top on that day?
A. I see the photos, yeah. That’s the only reason why I’d say she’s
wearing it.
Q. What do you remember about that day?
A. Nothing really.

Q. Was Chalinder staying with you at the time?

A. What do you mean staying with me?

Q. She was spending overnight with you?

A. On that particular day?

Q. Yes.
A. I have no idea.

Q. When did you first see on that day the green and white Benetton
top?
A. When did I first see it?

[page 189]

Probing the truthfulness of the witness’s answer by asking a

simple question based on what else a reasonable person
might expect to be so if the answer given were true
3.32 This simple question is important. If the Benetton top had been
Chalinder’s, one would have expected Milat to have seen it on
previous or subsequent occasions. The witness appears to be
distancing himself from any knowledge of the Benetton top. A good
cross-examiner can often sense when the witness is reluctant to
engage with a particular topic, and it is often best to continue
probing the issue, as Tedeschi skillfully does here.
Q. When did you first see that green and white Benetton top?
A. Can you just say that again?

Q. Yes. Well, you have told us that Chalinder was wearing this green
and white Benetton top?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you see it before she was wearing it? Had you ever seen it
before that day when she was wearing it?
A. I can only remember it because I see the photo there.

Q. You have no memory of having seen it before then?

A. That’s right.

Q. Had you ever seen it around your home?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever seen anyone else wearing it?

A. Not that I can recall, no.

Q. Do you know, from having seen anything yourself, how Chalinder

Hughes came to be in possession of that green and white Benetton
top?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Did you give it to her?

A. No.

Putting the cross-examiner’s case

3.33 The next question is ultimately what the Crown asserted took place
— it is important to put this to the witness, not only as a matter of
fairness, but it also informs the jury of the conclusion the cross-
examiner will be asking them to draw and telegraphs a likely
submission in the cross-examiner’s closing address.

[page 190]

Q. I suggest to you that you took this green and white Benetton top
from the belongings of Caroline Clarke?
A. I never did.

Q. And I suggest that you gave it to Chalinder Hughes, your then

girlfriend?
A. No.

Q. You have told us that Chalinder Hughes regularly visits you?

A. Yes.

‘Groundwork’ and order of questioning

3.34 The importance of this ‘groundwork’ question, just asked, becomes
apparent some questions later (see 3.37) when Tedeschi asks the
witness whether he understands the importance of the Benetton top
in the case. This planning ahead — asking questions in the correct
order — is a vital skill to effective cross-examination. Had the order
of these questions been reversed, the witness would have been
alerted to the importance of having had the opportunity to ask
Chalinder about the Benetton top.
Q. She hasn’t missed a week?
A. That’s right.

Q. Have you discussed with her this green and white Benetton top?
A. No.

If what the witness is saying is true, then surely the witness

would have acted appropriately
3.35 This last question is significant — the photographs had been
tendered in the prosecution case and the significance of the Benetton
top was quite apparent from the outset. A reasonable person might
expect the witness to have made some inquiries of others,
particularly Ms Hughes, as to where it had come from, if he
genuinely had no idea where it came from.

Q. Not once?
A. No.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. I’m positive.

Q. Has she asked you anything about this green and white Benetton
top?
A. No.

[page 191]

Q. Do you know anything about how Chalinder Hughes came to be in

 possession of the green and white Benetton top?
A. I have no idea.

Q. You can’t offer any explanation to the court whatsoever as to how

Chalinder Hughes came to be in possession of the green and white
Benetton top, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Do you know where that green and white Benetton top is now?
A. I have no idea.

Pressing the point for emphasis

3.36 Pressing the point in this way emphasises the absence of any
plausible explanation offered as to the origin (or whereabouts) of the
shirt.

Q. Do you know what happened to it after that day when Chalinder

Hughes was wearing it?
A. I’d have no idea.

Q. Did you ever see it again after that day?

A. I can’t say I did. I can’t recall it.

Q. You just know nothing about that Benetton top whatsoever, is that
right?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Apart from seeing it in the photograph?

A. That’s about the only way I can recall it.
Q. You understand the importance of that top in this case, don’t you?
A. Well, I know you’re talking about another one, yes.

Q. You understand the importance of those photographs?

A. Yes.

The fruit of groundwork

3.37 This question ties back to the previous groundwork question
above;38 it would be very difficult for the witness to have answered
this question in any way other than in the affirmative, and the
affirmative answer given now completes the proposition that Milat
knew that Ms Hughes had worn the Benetton top, that he

[page 192]

knew the significance of the evidence of the photograph of Ms

Hughes wearing the Benetton top, and that he had ample
opportunity to ask her (or his sister Shirley) where it had come from,
yet he had not done so. The point is further explored and brought
home by the questions that follow.

Q. Have you caused some enquiries to be made as to the present

whereabouts of that green and white top?
A. Me?

Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Have you asked Chalinder what she did with it?
A. No.

Q. Have you asked Chalinder where it is now?

A. No.

Q. You found out about those photographs at the committal

proceedings?
A. Well, yeah, I presume when they were tendered.

Q. When did you first find out about this green and white Benetton
top? When did you find out about those photographs showing
Chalinder with the green and white Benetton top?
A. When I got my brief, I seen it there.

Q. Was that in 1994?

A. Yes, it would be around that time.

Q. Since then how many times has Chalinder visited you?

A. Every weekend.

Q. That is about 52 times a year?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Have you, on any one of those occasions, asked Chalinder where

that Benetton top is now?
A. No.
(Crown Prosecutor granted access to exhibit FR.)
Q. I would like to show you some photographs. Firstly, do you agree
all those photographs come from your collection of photographs at
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. What collection?

[page 193]

Do not underestimate the value of what photographs may

contain
3.38 The photographs in Milat’s albums were a very rich source of
evidence for the prosecution, as is apparent from the extensive use
made of them during this cross-examination. They often provided a
‘springboard’ for lines of questioning. The line that follows now in
relation to the photographs of Milat’s Harley-Davidson (exhibit FR)
is a very good example of the use to be made of such photographs.

Q. Your photographs that you own that were kept at [XXXXXXXX]

Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. I had a lot of photographs, yes.

Q. Did it include those two photographs of Chalinder?

A. I believe it did.

Q. In fact, was one of the photographs in an album you kept at your

place?
A. I assume it was from there, yes.

Q. Would you have a look at mfi 9 (shown). Is that your album of

 photographs?
A. Yes.

Q. Was one of the photographs of Chalinder kept in that album?

A. Could be, yes.

Q. I would like to show you one of the photographs from exhibit FR

showing the Harley Davidson motor bike (approached and shown
photograph). Do you see this photograph?
A. Yes.

Technique in the use of photographs

3.39 This photograph from Milat’s album was taken at Guildford and
shows his Harley-Davidson motorbike displayed with much
weaponry, including his camouflage painted SKK automatic rifle, a
semi-automatic Franchi brand rifle, a holster holding a revolver and
an amount of ammunition. Tedeschi’s use of, and questions based
on, this photograph demonstrate excellent technique. The cross-
examiner details one by one the items shown in the photograph and
asks for an answer in relation to each one as to its identification.
This is much more effective than a global question about the
firearms in the photograph. The witness gives the cross-examiner
one affirmative answer after another when questioned about this
critical evidence.

[page 194]

Q. That is your motor bike?

A. Yes.

Q. That photograph was taken at Guildford?

A. That’s right.

Q. It shows your SKK semi-automatic rifle?

A. That’s right.

Q. It shows a Franchi rifle, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that an automatic?
A. Semi-automatic.

Q. It also shows a holster holding a revolver?

A. Yes.

Spotting and probing incriminating evidence in a

photograph
3.40 The presence of a revolver in this context was strong circumstantial
evidence that Milat owned or at least had access to a revolver, which
is the kind of gun that Onions described as having been loaded with
copper-tipped bullets and used in the attempt to abduct him.39

Q. Is there a helmet on the bike?

A. I can’t see one.

Q. Is there some ammunition on the bike and on the ground?

A. Yes.

Q. The SKK is yours?

A. That’s right.

Q. The Franchi is yours?

A. That’s right.

Q. The motor bike is yours?

A. That’s right.

Q. Is the ammunition yours?

A. Yes.

[page 195]

Q. The ammunition, in fact, is for a shotgun, is that right?

A. Looks like it, yes.

Q. Is the Franchi a shotgun?

A. That’s right.

Q. So the ammunition is for the Franchi?

A. That’s right.

Q. Then there is the holster, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the holster yours?

A. Yes.

Order of questions
3.41 It was wise to ask the witness to identify the holster as his first, and
then to identify the kind of firearm that was inside the holster.

Q. Inside the holster there is what clearly is a revolver, do you agree?

A. Yes, something there.

Q. Well, it is not just something, it is a revolver?

A. Yes, type of thing.

Insisting on a clear answer

3.42 This is a good example of the need to press the witness for an
unequivocal answer. Milat’s responses here seem somewhat vague
and the cross-examiner presses the issue home by the series of
questions that must be answered in the affirmative in view of the
contents of the photograph in front of the witness and the jury.

Q. Do you see the round chamber of the revolver?

A. Well, we can assume it’s there.

Q. I show you another photograph from exhibit FR (shown). Again, is

it your motor bike?40
A. Yes.

[page 196]
Q. Taken at Guildford?
A. Yes.

Q. Showing your SKK?

A. That’s right.

Q. Your Franchi?
A. Yes.

Q. Your motor bike helmet?

A. Looks like it, yes.

Q. Your holster?
A. I assume so.

Q. A Colt pistol?
A. Yes.

Q. Was it your Colt pistol?

A. Yes.41

Q. You have already told us you took that photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, did you take both of those?

A. I imagine I did.

Q. Which camera did you use?

A. I couldn’t say one way or the other.
Reinforcing the evidence given previously about Caroline
Clarke’s camera
3.43 Tedeschi asks Milat which camera he used to take the photographs
of the Harley-Davidson. The witness is unable to say, and does not
even attempt to suggest what camera he might have used.

Q. Is this correct, that in the left hand drawer of bedroom four you
had some Colt grip plates?
A. Yes.

[page 197]

Timing and the aggregation of evidence

3.44 This is a very effective time for the cross-examiner to remind the
witness of the other revolver-related items that were found — the
Colt grip plates in bedroom 4 and the cartridge adaptors found in
the Jackeroo car in the garage and in the High Sierra day pack.

Q. Would those Colt grip plates fit a Colt 45 revolver?

A. I don’t know. I imagine they would.

Q. Is this the case, the cartridge adaptors in your Jackeroo would be

suitable for use with a 45 revolver?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this the case, that the cartridge adaptors in the High Sierra day
pack would also be suitable for a 45 Colt revolver?
A. Yes.

Q. If we can go back to the first photograph you have there, part of

exhibit FR (shown). Does that appear to you to be a Colt 45
revolver?
A. I don’t know.

Completing the circle after the groundwork; recanting and

prevaricating can be significant
3.45 Having now obtained confirmation as to the witness’s ownership of
many of the items, Tedeschi now comes back to the photograph of
the Harley-Davidson with the holster containing a revolver. The
sequence here has been done well. First, the witness was asked about
a number of items that the cross-examiner had already established
belonged to the witness, and obtained affirmative answers from the
witness that those items were his. Then the cross-examiner asks
about the presence of the items found among the witness’s
possessions that were suitable for use with a revolver. Against this
background of so many items that the witness acknowledges to be
his, Milat’s denial of ownership of the revolver stands out as
incongruous, given its presence in the photograph of his Harley-
Davidson and other weapons belonging to him. The cross-examiner
has achieved this stark contrast by the correct ordering of his
questions.
The witness has previously agreed, when shown the plain evidence
of the photograph, that this was a revolver; his response here, that he
doesn’t know whether it is a revolver, appears to be a recantation in
direct conflict with his earlier admission. This is the kind of
prevarication one sees when a witness wants to back away from their
previous answer, now that the significance of the questions is
 beginning to become apparent to the witness.

[page 198]

Q. I suggest to you it is your Colt 45 revolver?

A. It’s not mine.

Q. Whose is it?
A. I thought it was Richard’s.

Q. What made you think that?

A. Well, I seen him with it.

Q. You saw him with it?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you come to photograph a Colt revolver of Richard’s,

together with all your firearms, the other ones being yours?
A. If I can recall, he was around when I was taking the photos.

Probing
3.46 As Milat is now asserting that the revolver may have been his
brother Richard’s, Tedeschi asks Milat to explain how it is that
Richard’s revolver is in the picture when everything else in the
picture is Milat’s?

Q. Do you say he was there when that photograph of the Colt revolver
was taken? Was he there?
A. Yes.

Q. How did he come to put his Colt revolver in your holster on your
motor bike?
A. I imagine he just wanted a photo of it.

Q. I don’t want to know what you imagine — tell us how he could put
his Colt revolver into your holster in your motor bike?
A. Well, he just wanted a photo of it.

Maintaining control
3.47 The cross-examiner does not want to know what the witness
‘imagines’ happened — he wants to know what the witness did and
what he saw happen.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. I can’t recall now.

Q. Who put it into the holster?

A. He did — I did. I don’t know.

[page 199]

Q. What was in the holster originally?

A. My one.

Q. But the holster that the Colt pistol is in the second photograph you
have in front of you is a different holster isn’t it?
A. Different what?

Q. Different holster?
A. I don’t know. I can’t see it.

Q. (Approached) I withdraw that suggestion.

A. Thank you.

Correcting yourself
3.48 The cross-examiner has promptly withdrawn a question that he has
realised was based on an incorrect observation. It is important to
withdraw such questions promptly as has been done here, in fairness
to the witness.

Q. Do you know where that Colt pistol is now?

A. No, I thought I heard me brother said he got rid of it somewhere.

Q. Do you agree that the revolver in the photograph appears to be a

45 revolver.
A. I can’t agree with that, but I have heard the experts.

Q. Would you have a look please at this photograph which is part of

exhibit GL (shown). This was shown to you by Mr Martin. It shows
the same motor bike?
A. That’s right.

Q. Also at Guildford?
A. Yes.
Q. The same SKK?
A. That’s right.

Q. The same Franchi?

A. That’s right.

Q. The same holster?

A. I assume so, yes.

Q. Does it appear to be the same holster?

A. Yes.

Q. The same revolver as in one of the other photographs?

A. I suppose so.

[page 200]

Q. On the back of this you have identified some of your hand writing
which says ‘93 FXRS — CON’?
A. That’s right.

Q. That is your writing?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean — what does that stand for?

A. That’s just a model of the motor cycle.

Q. So it is a ‘93 model?
A. That’s right.

Q. Because you got it in 1993 — was it manufactured in 1993?

A. That’s right.

Q. What does ‘FXRS’ mean?

A. Something in Harley Davidson just to identify that model.

Q. What does ‘CON’ mean?

A. Short for ‘convertible’.

Q. There are some numbers ‘11 3 93’?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a date?
A. It looks like a date to me.

Identifying the witness’s habits — his way of writing dates

3.49 This was a useful opportunity to have the witness confirm the way in
which he used to write dates, without any strokes or other
punctuation between the digits.

Q. Is that about when you got the Harley Davidson motor bike, 11
March 1993?
A. I can’t recall if I got it that day or not.

Q. Was it in March 1993?

A. It was March, yes.
Q. Do you have every reason to believe that is the date that you got
the Harley Davidson?
A. I can’t recall what day I got it.

Q. Those numbers have been written down without strokes or dots in

between the numbers?
A. That’s right.

[page 201]

Q. Similar to the way in which you wrote the date on the Ruger
10/22 manual?
A. That’s right.

Echoing and relating back

3.50 This is another good example of the cross-examiner drawing
connections — here in relation to the way the date has been written
on the back of the photograph with the way Milat wrote the date on
the Ruger manual.42 This is an effective way to remind the jury of
the previous evidence and to strengthen the likelihood of the
proposition (which Milat denies here) that he has also written the
date on the back of the photograph. Milat’s denial is so incongruous
with the weight of the evidence that the cross-examiner asks him, in
the next question, to offer any explanation as to how someone other
than he may have known the date he purchased the Harley-
Davidson and why someone other than he would write this date on
the back of his photograph. The witness’s answer, that ‘somebody
has obviously written it there that had possession of that
photograph’, is hardly credible.
Q. Would you have a look at the 3 in the middle? Do you see the 3 in
the middle there?
A. Yes.

Q. Compare it to the 3 of the 93 on the top line — does it look to be

the same to you?
A. Similar.

Q. I suggest to you the date written there ‘11 3 93’ is your writing?
A. I don’t know. I can’t recall that. Doesn’t look like mine at all.

Q. I suggest to you it is your writing?

A. Well, you are wrong.

Q. Do you have any explanation to give to the court how someone

else might know the date you purchased your Harley Davidson and
why they would write it on the back of this photograph?
A. I can’t really give no explanation for it, no. Somebody has
obviously written it there that had possession of that photograph.

Q. The rest of the writing on it, do you think that might be yours?
(shown)
A. Some of it is, yes.

Intuitive questions on the run

3.51 This is a good example of the cross-examiner intuitively following a
line of inquiry that immediately arises from the witness’s hardly-
expected answer; if, as the witness asserts, someone else has written
the date, and Milat has previously
 [page 202]

admitted to writing ‘93 FXRS — CON’ (the model of the Harley-

Davidson) on the back of the photo, then who has written the other
details on the back of the photo? The cross-examiner takes the
witness through all of the writing piece-by-piece, and Milat admits
that it is his own, but denies writing the information identifying the
revolver — ‘17 Colt 45 AP’ which, his counsel later argued, was
written in someone else’s handwriting. The cross-examiner then asks
a series of questions, drawing together all of the powerful
circumstantial evidence pointing to Milat’s ownership of a revolver,
and confronting the witness with this. The witness does not deal
satisfactorily with these questions, and ends up saying that the
cartridge adaptors in his car were ‘not for his personal use’. This is a
very telling passage in the cross-examination. Tedeschi takes the
witness’s answer to the logical conclusion in asking, ‘Did you have
them for use by someone else in a 45?’. Milat’s response, ‘That’s what
I imagine they would be used for’, is barely credible.

Q. Which part is yours?

A. The ‘SKK’ and ‘SPAS 12’.

Q. ‘SPAS 12’, that is yours?

A. That’s right.

Q. ‘SKK’ is yours?
A. Looks like it, yes.

Q. What does ‘SPAS 12’ stand for?

A. Semi pump automatic shotgun.
Q. That is a reference to the Franchi?
A. That’s right.

Q. ‘17 Colt 45 ACP’, do you think that might be yours as well?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whose writing that is?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You wrote some of the writing on the back of this photograph?

A. That’s right.

Q. Were you present when someone else wrote anything on the back
of it?
A. No.

Q. This photograph, I suggest to you, came from mfi 9, which is your

album of photographs?
A. I would agree with that.

[page 203]

Q. Do you have any explanation as to how ‘17 Colt 45 ACP’ came to

be on the back of the photograph?
A. I can give a theory but I don’t really like to say it.

Q. This photograph also you took.

A. Yes.
Q. Did you have them processed?
A. Yes.

Q. Mr Milat, I suggest to you that that Colt 45 revolver was your

revolver?
A. Never mine.

Q. I suggest to you that the cartridge adaptors in your car and the
cartridge adaptors in the day pack were for use in that revolver?
A. I wouldn’t have any idea if they were.

Q. The cartridge adaptors in your car, they would be suitable for use
in such a revolver?
A. They are suitable for a 45 revolver, yes.

Q. Can you think of any reason why anybody would have cartridge
adaptors in their car except for use in such a revolver, that is, a 45
calibre revolver?
A. I had a quantity of cartridge adaptors, if you call them, yes.

Q. Did you have them for use with a 45?

A. No, not for my personal use, no.

Q. Did you have them for use by someone else in a 45?

A. That’s what I imagine they would be used for, yes.

Q. In relation to a 38 revolver, I suggest to you that you told Mr

Anthony Sara, a fellow employee at work, that you had a 6 shot
38 calibre revolver?
A. I never said that at all.
Re-inforcing
3.52 Tedeschi now re-inforces the evidence about Milat having access to a
revolver by reminding him of the evidence of one of his fellow
employees to the effect that Milat had told him that Milat owned a
38 calibre revolver. Milat denies this, and Tedeschi asks him about
the 38 calibre copper-tipped ammunition found at his home.

Q. In fact, in the left hand drawer of the dresser in bedroom 4 you

had some 38 fired cartridge cases, is that correct?
A. I had a large quantity of 38 cartridges in my house.

[page 204]

Q. And they would be suitable for use in a 38 calibre 6-shot revolver?

A. Yes.

Q. You had some fired 38 calibre cartridge cases in the fourth

bedroom, didn’t you?
A. I believe so.

Q. And the 38 calibre cartridges that you had were of Dominion

brand?
A. Cartridge cases?

Q. No, the complete cartridges, the complete unused cartridges?

A. That’s right.

Q. They were Dominion cartridges?

A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And they are copper tipped, is that right?

A. I can’t recall but if you say so.

‘I can’t recall, but if you say so’

3.53 This kind of equivocal answer from a witness is usually a good
indication to the cross-examiner that the witness can give no more
answer helpful to the witness and does not want to expressly admit
the proposition being put, yet is prepared to accept the accuracy of
what the cross-examiner is putting. Such responses are often a good
clue that the subject matter of the questioning is worrying to the
witness, and should continue to be probed by the cross-examiner.

Q. They were in a cardboard box on the bed in bedroom 4, is that

right?
A. I would have thought would have been sitting on the dresser but --

Q. Would you have a look at these cartridges which were found in

the cardboard box on the bed in bedroom 4 (shown). Are they .38
calibre Smith & Wesson cartridges, that is their calibre?
A. Yes.

Q. And they are Dominion brand?

A. That’s right.

Q. Are they copper tipped?

A. Yes.
Q. I suggest to you that during your attempted abduction of Mr
Onions you used copper tipped bullets?43
A. I never attempted to abduct anyone.

[page 205]

Q. I show you a threaded barrel cap, exhibit KH (shown). Do you

agree that is a barrel cap?44
A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree that that was in the console of your Jackeroo on 22

May 1994?
A. I heard the policeman say that.

Q. You do not dispute that?

A. I could not dispute that, it would be in me car.

Q. Have you ever had such a barrel cap?

A. I can’t say whether I did or not. I believe I had one in me drawer.

Q. You do not dispute the evidence it was in your car though, is that
right?
A. The police, I heard them say that.

Q. And you do not dispute that, do you?

A. You want me to say that — I don’t know what you want me to say.

The cross-examiner does not answer questions from the

witness
3.54 After this answer, once again the cross-examiner refuses to answer
what is potentially a question put to him by the witness. This is
invariably the correct approach. An inexperienced cross-examiner
might prematurely respond by saying something like ‘How about
telling the truth?’, which would simply lead to argumentation, and
this should be avoided.

Q. Is this correct, that you do not say that that evidence is wrong, you
do not dispute it that it was found in the console of your car?
A. I heard the police say it, that’s about all I can say.

Q. You don’t dispute it, do you?

A. Well I sort of do but I’ll agree that if it was in me car, it was in the
car. I can’t remember it ever being in there, that’s all.

Q. I show you the Anschutz rifle from the alcove (shown). Would you
have a look at that please?
A. Yes.

[page 206]

The use of demonstration

3.55 What follows here is a very dramatic demonstration by the cross-
examiner asking that the witness be shown the Anschutz rifle,45 and
then asking the witness to remove the barrel cap on the rifle and see
if the barrel cap found in the console of the Jackeroo will also screw
onto the Anschutz. It does.
Q. That is the Anschutz rifle that you bought?
A. It looks like it, yes.

Q. Would you tell the court does the threaded barrel cap go on the
Anschutz rifle?
A. That one?

Offering the witness a chance to make an admission, which

is declined
3.56 The cross-examiner gives the witness here the opportunity to admit
that the barrel cap from the Jackeroo fits the Anschutz; however, the
witness maintains that he doesn’t know, but offers to try it.

Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know. You want me to try it?

Q. Yes please. Is there a threaded barrel cap on the Anschutz rifle at

the moment?
A. Pardon?

Clarifying a question
3.57 Here, for once the cross-examiner answers a question from the
witness, because he has enlisted the witness’s help in the
demonstration and the question simply seeks instructions for that
process.

Q. Is there a threaded barrel cap on the Anschutz rifle at the moment?

A. Yes.
Q. I ask you to take that off and I will hold that one. (Witness
complied.) Tell us if the other one from the console of your car46
goes on the Anschutz?
A. Yes.

[page 207]

Q. Take that off please (witness complied). I would like you to

compare these two (shown). Do they appear to be the same
length?
A. They look like it.

Q. I give you back the one that comes from the Anschutz (put back on
the rifle by the accused). Now, I show you exhibit FU, the silencer
(shown). You told the court that that is a home-made silencer that
you made?
A. That’s right.

Sequencing your questions in the right order for maximum

effect
3.58 The sequence of showing the silencer47 to the witness, after the
threaded barrel and barrel cap demonstration, is a powerful way to
present the evidence in support of the prosecution’s contention that
Milat had been involved in the murder of Caroline Clarke, where
ballistics evidence indicated a silencer (that would be screwed onto
the end of a threaded barrel) had likely been used.

Q. I think you said that you made this for a 22 rifle, is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. You say that it fits on the 22 rifle that was found in the grey locker
at Guildford?
A. Supposed to, yes.

Q. That is the JW15 rifle?

A. Yes.

Q. Would this silencer go onto another 22 rifle that was threaded?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Well, if a person wanted to thread a 22 rifle, could it be threaded

to fit this silencer?
A. I suppose so.

Q. Now, I show you exhibit HW (shown). Is that the JW15 rifle?

A. That’s right.

Q. That is yours?
A. Yes.

Probing
3.59 See Photo 61 showing the JW15 rifle. The series of questions that
follows elicits more evidence that Milat had the capacity through
work to arrange to have a rifle threaded so as to fit a silencer.

[page 208]

Q. From the grey locker?

A. That’s right.

Q. You have told the court that you threaded it?

A. That’s right.

Q. In fact I think you have threaded a considerable amount of the

barrel?
A. Yes.

Q. And you did that I think you said with someone at work?
A. That’s right.

Q. Who was that?

A. One of the fitters, I just can’t recall now which one.

Q. Well, can you give us a range of names who it might have been,
who helped you do it?
A. All he did was give me the pipe threader.

More probing
3.60 Tedeschi invited the witness to advise who it was that helped him
thread the barrel at work; Milat eventually offers a possible name of
who gave him the pipe threader and in the process confirms that he
himself had done the threading.

Q. He gave you a pipe threader?

A. Yes.

Q. So you yourself did the threading?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you said you did it with someone at work, that was
inaccurate, it was you who did it?
A. I did the twisting, yes.

Q. He just gave you the pipe threader?

A. That’s right.

[page 209]

Q. Who was that?

A. I’m not sure, it could have been one of the fitters, Tony — I’m not
real sure — I think it was Tony.

Q. Do you know his complete name?

A. He was a leading hand, I’m not sure. He has one eye, that’s about
the main thing I can remember about him, Kolenic I think is his
name, might have been, I’m not real sure.

HIS HONOUR: Q. Do you know how to spell that name?

A. No, I’m not even sure, your Honour, if it is that name. He has been
there a long time, I’m sure if they could find out, he’s the only one
over there with one eye.

Q. I am more concerned about getting the name accurate in the

transcript?
A. I believe it started with K but I’m not real sure.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Does the silencer thread on to that?

A. Yes.

Q. How does the size of that barrel compare to the size of a Ruger
10/22?
A. Length-wise, thickness-wise or whatever?

A provocative question followed by a probing of

methodology using an exhibit
3.61 This is an excellent question, in that it raises the likelihood that the
process of threading the barrel of a Ruger 10/22 would be the same
as used in the JW15. Tedeschi then follows this up by showing the
witness the ‘unused’ Ruger 10/2248 and asking him to make a
comparison, and then asking the witness whether someone with
access to the same pipe threader would be able to thread the Ruger
10/22 in the same way, after cutting off the front sight with a
hacksaw. The witness agrees, after some prevaricating, that this is so.
Note how in this series of questions the cross-examiner keeps on
point, pressing the issue that he is asking about, rather than getting
lost in the comparison of different rifle barrels that the witness is
referring to.

Q. The width of the barrel?

A. I have no idea. I imagine it would be something similar.

Q. Pretty similar?
A. Well, I am just looking at these two, they’re different brands and
there is a great difference in length.

[page 210]
Q. Yes, but the width of the barrel is about the same?
A. These two?

Q. Yes.
A. One appears more tapered but they probably, you know, within
whatever.

Q. I show you a Ruger — I show you exhibit HE which is the unused

Ruger as it has been called (shown). Would you compare the
barrel size of that, the width. Does it appear to be the same?
A. Well, something I suppose, yes.

Q. So if somebody had access to that pipe threader that you have told
us about, the pipe threader that you used on the JW15?
A. Yes.

Q. They would be able to thread a Ruger 10/22, wouldn’t they, if

they wanted to?
A. I don’t know what — you’d have to chop that off I imagine
(indicated front sight).

Q. Yes and then be able to thread a Ruger 10/22 to fit this silencer,
wouldn’t you?
A. I would not have a clue.

Q. Let us say you have got those three rifles in front of you and this
man with one eye comes up to you and gives you the pipe
threader, right. Would you be able to thread that Ruger 10/22?
A. I don’t believe so, no.
Q. Why is that?
A. I think the sight is in the way.

Q. You would not have any difficulty cutting the sight off, would you?
A. I would — how would I cut it off?

Q. You would be able to cut the sight off, wouldn’t you?

A. With what?

Q. You would be able to cut the sight off?

A. No.

Q. Wouldn’t you?
A. With what, the pipe threader?

Q. No, with some other instrument?

A. I suppose I could do anything to it.

Q. With a hacksaw, something like that?

A. Yes.

[page 211]

Q. A hacksaw would enable you to take the sight, the front sight off?
A. You would ruin the gun. You’re not going to aim it.

Q. If you took that front sight off you would then be able to thread it
with the pipe threading instrument that this man gave you at work,
right?
A. Well I suppose so, yes.

Q. Thread it so that it would fit this silencer, is that so?

A. You could do that to any gun.

Q. You could do it to a Ruger 10/22, couldn’t you?

A. I think it would be easier on this one than that one.

Q. But you could do it to a Ruger 10/22 if you wanted to, couldn’t

you?
A. Well, I suppose I could do it to any gun.

Q. Including a Ruger 10/22?

A. I suppose so.

Q. You have some difficulty accepting that that includes a Ruger

10/22 that you could do it to?
A. When I did this one here, I put it in the vice, slided that in and
turned that around and around.

Q. How did you get the front sight off that gun?
A. Never had a front sight. This is the sights.

Q. I can see that. You agree that if you had that pipe threader you
would be able to thread a Ruger 10/22 yourself?
A. Not like that, no.

Q. If you cut off the front sight?

A. Well, if I did all this and I did all that, you could do anything I
suppose.
Q. Including fitting this silencer to a Ruger 10/22, is that right?
A. Well, I suppose so.

Q. Now would you have a look please at these photographs.

MARTIN: I think when Mr Milat said ‘This is the sight’ he was referring
to the telescopic sight on the rifle. I don’t think that would have been
reflected in the record.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: That’s correct.

Q. (Approached) I want to show you some photographs from folder 8

at [XXXXXX] Drive, Hilltop. I take you to tab A which relates to
[XXXXXX] Drive [Hilltop], firstly tab A photo 9. Have a look at that?
A. Yes.

[page 212]

Moving on to the next topic, and maintaining pace — the

items in the alcove at Walter Milat’s home
3.62 It is clear that the cross-examiner has finished asking questions
about the threading of rifle barrels. The new topic is introduced
simply by showing the witness a photograph of the items stored in
the alcove49 — of which the jury also had a copy — and proceeding
to ask questions about the items in the alcove. The pace of the cross-
examination is kept up well here. The witness appears reluctant to
acknowledge that he may have put any blanket or such material over
the items stored in the alcove.

Q. Does that appear to be the stuff that you stored in the alcove
 underneath Walter’s place at [XXXXXX] Drive, Hilltop?
A. Yes.

Q. That photograph is taken in the alcove — what we have called the

alcove in this case?
A. Yes.

Q. Now I would like to draw your attention to some pinky purply

coloured material towards the bottom of that photograph?
A. That?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.

Q. You see that pinky purply patterned material down the bottom of
the photograph?
A. This here?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.

Q. Now is that material that you used to wrap up some of the guns
that were stored in the alcove?
A. I don’t believe so. It looks like it’s covered it over or whatever,
yeah.

Q. But is that material that you used in the storage of all that stuff in
the alcove?
A. I never really covered it up. We just put it in there and that’s all I
did. I don’t know how it was covered over, really.
Q. Did you cover some of the guns that you stored in the alcove with
that pink purply material?
A. Not that I recall, no.

[page 213]

Q. Well, did you use any material like that to store some guns in the
alcove?
A. No. I don’t know what it’s supposed to be, a quilt or something.

Q. Look, has someone stolen into the alcove in the middle of the night
just to wrap up some of your guns?
A. I don’t know what they done. Once I put the guns in there I never
went back.

Echoing back
3.63 Here is another reminder of the ‘planting’ theory and how
unbelievable it, and Milat’s distancing himself from these items, was
becoming. The witness appears reluctant to concede that any of the
materials used to wrap guns were placed there by him.

Q. But did you store your guns like that as shown in the photograph?
A. I put the guns in the alcove.

Q. Yes, but you didn’t just put them in loosely — you didn’t just throw
them in a pile, did you?
A. No, everything was stacked, neat. Everything wasn’t thrown in a
pile.
Q. They were stacked neatly and wrapped up, some of them, is that
right?
A. Usually they are in their own little containers.

Q. Some of them were in a wooden box?

A. Yes.

Q. Some of them were wrapped up, right? Can you see some other
guns in that photograph?
A. They’re not wrapped up. They’re in containers.

Q. And underneath those containers towards the bottom of the pile, is

there this material?
A. Looks like it’s covering over everything. It doesn’t — I don’t know
what’s wrapped up in it.

Q. Is that why you’re hesitant about admitting that you used that
material, because you don’t know what’s in it?
A. I’m not hesitating at all. It looks like just — it’s covered up. I never
covered the guns up.

Exposing matters that the witness appears to be very

reluctant to admit
3.64 This is a very good question, teasing out a very likely reason why the
witness may be reluctant to acknowledge covering up the guns with
the pink blanket material — he appears to be distancing himself
from having had anything to

[page 214]
 do with the guns wrapped in the pink material (which included the
Anschutz rifle and Milat’s Winchester lever-action repeating rifle).
The implication being hinted at by the cross-examiner is that the
witness knew very well what was wrapped in the pink blanket.
Tedeschi then moves on to the next photograph50 showing the items
(namely the Anschutz and the Winchester rifles) that had been
wrapped in the pink blanket. The cross-examiner knows that the
witness is aware of the photograph previously exhibited showing
him with guns in his living room, and holding a Winchester
repeating rifle. Yet the witness denies that the Winchester repeating
rifle in the alcove is his. In all the circumstances, this was highly
unlikely to be true, and the witness’s answer may be an indication of
extreme sensitivity to acknowledging ownership of anything that
might connect him to the Anschutz rifle (which ballistics evidence
established was used at the Neugebauer/Habschied crime scene).

Q. Now would you go to page 32. There is a post it note on that

page.
A. Pardon?

Q. There’s a yellow sticker stuck on that page, page 32.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the guns that are there?

A. That’s right.

Q. (Approached) You see that same piece of material from the alcove?
A. That’s right.

Q. And you see there are two guns there?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree that one of them is the Anschutz?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is the other one?

A. A lever action rifle.

Q. That’s a Winchester, a lever action rifle, is that right?

A. I don’t know what brand it is. I’d call it a Winchester anyway.

Q. And that’s yours?

A. No.

[page 215]

Q. The Winchester?
A. No.

Q. Not yours?
A. No.

Q. Do you recognise that gun at all?

A. Oh, I’ve seen — a couple of people have them guns, yes.

Q. Is that a Winchester 30/30 repeating rifle?

A. Looks like it.

Q. Did you put that Winchester in there?

A. No.

Q. So is this what you’re saying, that someone has gone and put that
Winchester in amongst your property?
A. You’re saying all what I see in front of me is my property?

Q. No, I’m saying you say that you didn’t put the Winchester into the
alcove, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Do you have any explanation as to how those two firearms and

that piece of material came to be in the alcove?
A. No. I presume whoever owns them put them there.

Q. So is this what you are saying, that someone has gone and put the
Anschutz rifle — that is a rifle that was used at one of the scenes in
the Belanglo State Forest — in amongst your property and whilst
doing it has put another rifle, a Winchester rifle that has got
nothing to do with the Belanglo State Forest with it — is that what
you’re saying?
A. Both the rifles have got nothing to do with me anyway.

‘Is this what you’re saying …?’

3.65 This is a good way to introduce this powerful question that ties
together all of the themes (and implications) being pursued in this
line of questioning, as well as echoing the themes put earlier in the
cross-examination.

Q. I suggest to you that those rifles were both put into the alcove by
 you, together with Richard and Walter, when you moved the stuff
from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. No. I — they could have been put in later, but not when I put my
stuff there.

Q. So these are some more items that have been placed with your
property by someone else, is that right?
A. No, I don’t agree with you there.

[page 216]

Q. Well, you didn’t put them there, you say?

A. That’s right.

Q. You say someone else put them there?

A. They must have.

Q. Do you have any knowledge who that person might be?

A. I would have thought it was Wally.51

Q. See, I suggest to you that you put both those rifles in there during
the move?
A. I never did.

Q. Would you have a look at this ammunition which is part of exhibit

GZ. (Shown) I show you some Winchester 30/30 ammunition. Is
that ammunition suitable for the Winchester 30/30 rifle that is
shown in that photograph with the piece of material and the
Anschutz?
A. I imagine it would be if it’s 30/30.

Building the point by accumulating evidence

3.66 Tedeschi is now introducing to this line of questioning the fact that
30/30 ammunition, suitable for use with the Winchester repeating
rifle, was also located in the High Sierra day pack belonging to
Schmidl, which had also been located in the alcove — evidence that
had been introduced earlier in the cross-examination.

Q. Did you at that time have any other weapon that was suitable for
using such ammunition?
A. I’ve never owned a 30/30 myself.

Q. So do you say it is just coincidence that in the High Sierra day

pack there is some 30/30 ammunition and in the alcove together
with your Anschutz, there is a Winchester 30/30 firearm?
A. No, I’m not saying that at all.

Q. What are you saying?

A. I’m saying nothin’. You’re saying something to me and I’m saying I
don’t know nothing.

Identifying the clues in a reluctant answer

3.67 This answer is very likely a strong indicator of the witness’s
reluctance to address the question. Answers of this kind may be
important clues for the cross-examiner and can be markers for areas
of difficulty in the witness’s testimony that might fruitfully be
explored and probed further.
 [page 217]

Q. I suggest to you that you used your Anschutz at the Habschied

Neugebauer scene during the abduction and deaths of Anja
Habschied and Gabor Neugebauer. What do you say to that?
A. You’re wrong again.

Concluding question
3.68 This question puts the implication of the preceding evidence that the
prosecution asserts is established by it. It is also a powerful question
with which to finish the session on the luncheon adjournment, when
the jury will have time to reflect upon its significance.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Mr Milat, you have told the court that in

January 1990 you did not have a moustache, is that right?
A. I believe I didn’t have a moustache, yes.

Timing — use the freshness of the jury after a decent break to

begin a major topic involving confronting the witness with
significant evidence
3.69 After the luncheon adjournment, Tedeschi introduces an important
and highly significant line of questioning relating to Milat’s
appearance around the time of the Onions incident. Onions had
described the man ‘Bill’ as having a ‘Merv Hughes’ type of
moustache. In his evidence-in-chief, Milat had given the following
answers about this issue:
Q. Mr Milat, did you have a moustache in January 1990?
 A. No.
Q. You know you did not?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that?
A. I didn’t have one.
Q. In January 1990?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had moustaches over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you grow your moustache down to your chin?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. How regularly over the years did you grow a moustache?
A. The last few years before my arrest I kept it on all the time.
Before that it was an on and off thing.

[page 218]

Q. You haven’t got one on now and you haven’t had one for the
duration of the trial. How does that come about?
A. It’s pretty difficult to maintain one in the gaol.
Q. Did you shave it off when you were put in gaol?
A. Yes.
Tedeschi’s cross-examination that now follows is an outstanding
demonstration of ‘confronting’ the witness with an irrefutable and
damaging piece of evidence. Milat’s unqualified assertion in his
evidence-in-chief, that he had not had a moustache in January 1990,
had been reported in the media that very day. A former work colleague
 of Milat, hearing the news report, recalled having attended the scene of
a fatal accident on the Great Western Highway at Hazelbrook on 12
January 1990, with Milat and other members of a road crew to do some
ashphalting of the road at the accident scene. The former colleague had
taken a number of photographs at this time, including photographs
showing Milat with a moustache. The former colleague contacted the
police and provided these photographs, which Tedeschi was given on
the morning of this second day of the cross-examination. Therefore,
the witness’s previously given evidence-in-chief on this issue was
provably untrue. Given that Milat had already given his evidence-in-
chief, and had clearly asserted that he had no moustache at the time,
the trial judge agreed with the Crown that there was no obligation
upon the Crown to have disclosed this new evidence to the defence, as
it was previously unknown to the Crown and had only just come to
light, and there was no unfairness to the accused.
Rather than immediately confronting the witness with these
photographs, Tedeschi determined to proceed with careful probing
questions, in order to ascertain the basis upon which Milat asserted
that he was clean-shaven at the time, knowing that such basis must be
at best, mistaken, and at worst, false. Taking this approach would
surely expose the absence of a proper basis for the witness’s assertion
(as indeed it did) and also possibly demonstrate the lengths to which
the witness might go to in order to justify his assertion. The fact that
the witness begins to qualify his evidence, and to become flippant
about the matter, is an important clue for the cross-examiner that he or
she is on the right track.

Q. But over the last few years before your arrest you kept it all the
time?
A. Yes.
Q. The last few years?
A. You are right there, yes.

Q. Before that it was an on-off thing?

A. That’s correct.

Q. During January 1990 was that a time when you had a moustache
on all the time or was it a time when it was an on and off thing?
A. I couldn’t really tell you if it was, you know, I just believe I never
had it at that time.

[page 219]

Sensing the witness qualifying his previously stated position,

and probing
3.70 Notice how the certainty with which Milat answered questions about
his moustache in his evidence-in-chief is now significantly qualified
by him. Perhaps this is an attempt to leave himself some room to
manoeuver on this matter; perhaps he sensed that the cross-
examiner had something that could prove him wrong. Such changes
in a witness’s position on a matter need to be probed carefully.
Tedeschi decides to probe this further, rather than immediately
reminding the witness of how certain he had been in his evidence-
in-chief that he did not have a moustache in January 1990. A less
experienced advocate may have immediately reminded the witness
of his previous evidence and confronted him about this and perhaps
produced the photographs now in the possession of the prosecution,
but this would have opened up an opportunity for the witness to
resile early on from his previous evidence, for example, by admitting
 that ‘he can’t remember’. However, Tedeschi prefers to probe gently
here to see to what extent the witness will hold to his previous
evidence (which the cross-examiner now knows for certain to be
untrue). This is very deftly handled.

Q. What makes you think that?

A. I can only go — I never had it the next year in January.

Q. How do you know that?

A. I seen a photo.

Q. From January 1991?

A. Pardon?

Q. You are saying you have seen photograph from January 1991?
A. Yes.

Q. Where you do not have a moustache?

A. Yes, the photo in there which shows me with Maureen Murray — I
haven’t got a moustache.

Q. That was in January 1991. How does that enable you to say in
January 1990 you did not have a moustache?
A. I can’t really say for sure.

Q. Well, during that year, between January 1990 and January 1991,
did you have a moustache at any time?
A. I could have, yes.
Q. For instance, in February 1990 do you think you had a moustache?
A. I could have, yes.

[page 220]

Probing
3.71 As part of the ‘probing’ process here, Tedeschi asks the witness
whether he may have had a moustache in the months either side of
January 1990. This is an excellent example of the process of probing
and a very effective lead-up to the questions that follow.

Q. What about December 1989, do you think you might have had a
moustache?
A. Yes.

Q. What makes you single out January 1990, apart from the fact that
was the month that Paul On ions was attacked?
A. Well, why not?

What makes you single out this occasion?

3.72 This is a very effective question that puts the witness on the spot, in
view of the answers he has just given suggesting his general
uncertainty on the matter of whether or not he had a moustache at
any particular time. It also reminds the jury of the significance of
January 1990. The question makes the obvious point (namely, why
does the witness happen to specifically remember the state of his
facial hair at the time of the Onion’s incident?). The witness’s
response is flippant and does not advance his position at all. All of
 this is consistent with the cross-examiner’s initial premise on which
this line of questions is based, namely, that the witness’s evidence
about not having a moustache in January 1990, is provably incorrect.

Q. Mr Milat, you told us you may have had a moustache in February

1990, a month afterwards?
A. Also I might not have, yes. Mr Tedeschi, I can’t tell you what month
or week I had my moustache on or not. I honestly don’t know.

Q. Is this the case, you don’t know whether or not you had a
moustache in January 1990?
A. I have no idea.

Q. So why did you tell the court — do you remember being asked this
question by my learned friend Mr Martin,
‘Q. Mr Milat, did you have a moustache in January 1990?
A. No.’
A. Yes.

[page 221]

Q.
‘Q. You know you didn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that?
A. I didn’t have one in January 1990, yes.’
A. That is what I believe, yes.
Good timing
3.73 Only after having thoroughly probed the issue with the witness does
the cross-examiner at last remind the witness of the unequivocal
position that the witness took in his evidence-in-chief. The witness
does his best to maintain his position, but faced with the doubts
raised by the cross-examiner, the witness finally acknowledges that
he does not know whether he had a moustache at the time or not.
His unequivocal evidence-in-chief on this vital issue has now been
completely undone.

Q. You have just told us now you don’t know whether or not you had
a moustache in January 1990?
A. Exactly.

Q. Now which is correct, you did not have one, you don’t know?
A. Seeing you want a yes or a no, well, I didn’t have one.

‘Which is it, A or B?’— forcing an election

3.74 It is important, on significant issues such as this, to require the
witness to ‘elect’ between two conflicting statements made by the
witness — the witness cannot have it both ways.

Q. So is what you told us earlier that you don’t know, incorrect?

A. No, I don’t know. I could have had one — I might’ve and I might
not have.

Q. If that is the case, you might have had one or might not have had
one, why did you tell the court you did not have one?
A. Well, that’s my recollection.

Q. On what do you base your recollection for January 1990? How do

you single out January 1990 from all the other months around
then?
A. Just no particular reason — just I seen that photo without me
having one on.

[page 222]

Q. That is in January 1991, you have told us that.

A. Yes.

Q. That does not help you to say whether you had a moustache in
January 1990, does it?
A. That’s the only indication I have got.

Pointing out weaknesses to the witness

3.75 Here the cross-examiner’s question points out the weakness of the
basis upon which the witness has decided that he was clean-shaven
in January 1990, and the witness’s answer finally confirms that this
flimsy reasoning is the only basis on which he has based his
recollection.

Q. Yes, you told us you might have had one in January 1990 but you
don’t know?
A. Well, I could have had one, I don’t know.
Q. You might have had one in December 1989 but you don’t know?
A. It’s my recollection I don’t think I did have one on.

Q. How good is your recollection?

A. As good as yours, I suppose, I don’t know.

Q. You see, what I am asking you to explain to the ladies and

gentlemen of the jury is how do you single out January of 1990
and say: look, I don’t remember February; I don’t remember
December but I remember January that I didn’t have a moustache.
What enables you to single out January 1990?
A. There is no particular reason. I could’ve had one — I might not
have had one. You are asking me and I am going to say no.

Q. The better chance is you had no moustache?

A. In them early years, yes.

Q. Is that because you spent more time without a moustache then than
you did with?
A. That’s right.

Q. So if somebody said: look, I knew Ivan Milat at around this time.

They would think of you mainly as having no moustache?
A. Could be, yes, depends whenever he seen me.

Q. Whenever who seen you?

A. Whoever, you know.

Q. On 25 January 1990, I suggest to you, you had a moustache?

A. How can you suggest that?
 [page 223]

Q. I am suggesting to you had a moustache on 25 January 1990.

What do you say about that?
A. I really don’t know.

Q. You might have?

A. I might not have.

Q. You just don’t know?

A. Correct.

Underscoring the difficulties the witness is having

3.76 Finally, the witness agrees that he simply does not know whether he
had a moustache or not in January 1990. The questions that follow
underscore the difficulties the witness appears to be having on this
issue.

Q. I would like to take you back to your answer you gave to Mr

Martin about this:
‘Q. Mr Milat, did you have a moustache in January 1990?
A. No.’
A. That’s what I sort of believe.

Q. Can you say to this court: I didn’t have a moustache in 1990?

A. I didn’t have a moustache in 1990, that’s what I believe, January
1990.
Q. That is the best of your recollection?
A. Yes.

Q. That is the best you can do now years later, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Is that for the whole of January 1990 or just for 25 January 1990?
A. Well, it’s what I believe. I am thinking about January 1990 now. I
can’t even recall it.

Q. Do you think you had a moustache off in January 1990 or are you
just making that comment about the day Mr Onions was attached?
A. No, I don’t know whether I had a moustache or not. I don’t believe
I did.

Q. If you don’t know why did you tell the court just yesterday you did
not have a moustache in 1990?
A. That’s what I believe. I believe I didn’t have a moustache in
January 1990.

Q. Is there anyone whom you know of who would be able to come to

court and say that you did not have a moustache in January 1990?
A. Probably lots of people might be able to say that.

[page 224]

What would an honest and reasonable person have done?

3.77 It was obvious to the cross-examiner that, given the importance of
 Onion’s identification and description of his attacker, had the
witness not had facial hair at the time he must surely have made
some inquiries of acquaintances or looked for a contemporaneous
photograph of himself, in order to help his defence.

Q. Do you know of anyone who is going to be a witness in this case

who might say that?
A. I don’t know whether they will or not.

Q. Do you know of anyone who is prepared to say that you had no

moustache in January 1990?
A. I haven’t discussed it with anybody.

Q. So it is entirely your own memory?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know of any photograph that shows you without a

moustache in January 1990?
A. I’m not aware of any.

Q. Have you looked for one?

A. The police have took all my photos.

Q. What about February 1990?

A. Same again, I don’t know.

Q. Have you got any photographs from then?

A. I have numerous photographs but I haven’t got access to them.
Q. Mr Milat, on 12 January 1990 did you go to a location on the
Great Western Highway in Hazelbrook, the location of a double
fatality on the road involving a heavy vehicle?
A. I don’t really know. I don’t attend accident scenes.

The importance of groundwork and timing

3.78 At this point, Tedeschi commences the lead-up to showing Milat the
photograph clearly showing Milat on 12th January 1990 with a
moustache. Note also how much has been achieved already by the
numerous preceding questions to demonstrate that the witness had
no sound basis for his evidence-in-chief that he had been clean-
shaven in January 1990. Note the careful stages by which Tedeschi
introduces the background to the events of 12 January 1990 that led
to the taking of the photograph, including showing the witness the
work diary as well as photographs of the scene, and having him
acknowledge being present

[page 225]

at the scene. Only then does the cross-examiner confront the witness
with the photograph showing Milat with a moustache, taken at what
is clearly the same time and place.

Q. Do you recall going to the scene of a double fatality accident on

the Great Western Highway at Hazelbrook on 12 January 1990
as part of your work?
A. I could have, I don’t know.
Seeding the question with information that makes it
memorable
3.79 This is a good example of including important information in the
question that adds significantly to its impact and its implications.
The fact that the accident scene involved a ‘double fatality’ would
imply that had Milat attended at the scene after such an accident he
would be unlikely to forget it, so it is important information to
include in the question.

Q. Do you remember going to the Great Western Highway at

Hazelbrook on that day, 12 January 1990, to do some road
profiling in an area where there had been a double fatality
accident?
A. I don’t know. I do road profiling all over the place.

Q. Do you remember this particular job involving a double fatality on

the Great Western Highway at Hazelbrook in the Blue Mountains?
A. I can’t remember but I’m not saying I wasn’t there.

Q. Do you recall going to that location and replacing some asphalt

behind a R/mill — what does R/mill stand for?
A. R/mill?

Q. Yes, rotomill or something?

A. I imagine so.

Q. Do you remember replacing asphalt behind a rotomill?

A. Well we have done that sort of — it’s a common work.
 Would you have a look please at this document (counsel
Q.
approached with document)? You see this Asphalt Gangers daily
work sheet?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that for 12 January 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that in relation to a job on the Great Western Highway at

Hazelbrook?
A. Yes.

[page 226]

Q. To replace some asphalt behind a rotomill?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you listed there?

A. Yes.

Q. As being one of the men in that team underneath the ganger Mr R

Miller?
A. That’s right.

Q. Does it have the hours you worked at the site between 12 midday
and 5.30 in the afternoon?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now, do you recall this job?

A. I don’t know. I don’t know whether I did or not. I could have.

Q. If I could perhaps assist you, it was about 120 metres west of

Mountview Road and involved a 1988 Mack articulated truck and
a 1987 inter articulated truck towing a trailer. Does that assist you?
A. Not at all.

Q. You agree that you did that job though?

A. Oh yes.

MFI #116 ASPHALT GANGERS DAILY WORK SHEET

Q. Mr Milat, I show you some photographs that might remind you

about that job. I show you four photographs (shown). Do those four
photographs assist you in remembering that particular job?
A. Well I remember this job, wherever it is, you know if it is the 12th,
well if it’s up at Hazelbrook that’s it, but looking at these photos I
haven’t seen these photos before.

Q. I am not suggesting you have seen those photographs before, quite

the contrary.
What I am suggesting to you is you were involved in doing that job?
A I probably was. There is a rotomill there.

Q. And you were a rotomill operator?

A. That’s right.

Q. Do you remember being there at that location — does the location

seem familiar to you?
A. Well I don’t know whether it’s familiar to me but it’s --
Q. I show you another couple of photographs, see if they ring any bell
with you (shown). Does that help you to remember?
A. Yes, I remember this machine coming off the truck.

Q. Which truck?
A. The low loader, the float.

[page 227]

MFI #117 ABOVE MENTIONED SIX PHOTOGRAPHS

Q. Would you have a look at this photograph (shown)?52

A. Yes.

Q. Who is that a photograph of?

A. Photograph of me.

Q. Is that a photograph of you on 12 January 1990?

A. I would not have a clue.

Q. I suggest to you that is a photograph of you at this location on the

Great Western Highway at Hazelbrook on 12 January 1990?
A. Could have been, I don’t know.

Q. Do you agree that it shows you in your work gear?

A. That’s right.

Q. And it shows you with some machinery in the background?

A. That’s right.
Q. The same machinery that was used at Hazelbrook?
A. Yeah. Machinery we use everywhere, I don’t know where it is.

Q. Does it appear to be the same location as the other photographs I

have shown you?
A. I don’t know. You can’t — it could be. I’m not saying it’s not but I
would not really have a clue.

Q. Do you see in that photograph — would you tell the jury, have you
got a moustache?
A. Yes.

An active, not passive, role for the witness

3.80 This is another excellent example of asking the witness himself to
describe what is in an exhibit, rather than simply tendering it, thus
giving the witness an active rather than a passive role in the
introduction of the evidence. This is only appropriate when the
cross-examiner knows that the answer is obvious and one that the
jurors will be able to see for themselves. This is a compelling way to
present evidence so damaging to the position that the witness had
been previously asserting. There are other examples of this
technique in the cross-examination. In the present line of
questioning, Tedeschi goes on to ask the witness to agree that the
photograph shows some of the details that had been included in
Onion’s evidence of the description of ‘Bill’, including the grey flecks
in his moustache.

[page 228]
Q. There is some white flecks down the bottom of your moustache
near the chin?53
A. Well, if you are saying it is, I can’t see it.

Q. Well have a look?

A. I can’t see it. My eyes are not that — these are only reading
glasses they’re not microscopic.

Q. I can get you a magnifying glass (shown to the accused).

A. What are we looking at?

Using a magnifying glass — never underestimate the

usefulness of a simple magnifying glass
3.81 It is not unknown for a witness to complain of poor eyesight when
asked to describe something that they would prefer not to see, or for
the witness simply to say that they cannot see the detail the cross-
examiner is referring to. The production of a magnifying glass will
often force and/or resolve the matter.

Q. White flecks in your moustache down near the chin.

A. Yeah, I’ve had that since in 19 — in the eighties.

Q. Do you also agree there are white flecks in your side levers?
A. Well yes.

Q. And is that what you looked like in January 1990?

A. I look like that most times.

Q. Would you agree that you were fitter then than you are now?
A. Yes.

Making the most of the information to be gathered from the

photograph
3.82 Tedeschi draws as much helpful evidence out of the photograph as it
contains — Milat looked very fit in the photograph, and it was
believed that the murderer would likely have been a physically
strong person.

Q. Is this the case, you used to lift weights?

A. Not — well all depends what you mean lift weights?

Q. Those barbells in your house that had concrete at either end?

A. Yeah, I exercised a bit.

[page 229]

Q. Did you exercise with them?

A. Occasionally, yes.

Q. How much do they weigh?

A. I don’t know, 20, 40 — I’m not real sure.

MFI #118 PHOTOGRAPH OF ACCUSED

Q. Would you have a look at folder seven, tab B, photo 1, you see
that set of weights there?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. Did you make those?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you regularly use them?

A. Not regularly.

Q. You trained with them from time to time?

A. Yes.

Q. How much did they weigh?

A. I’m not real sure whether it is 20 or 40 pound per end. I can’t
really recall.

Q. If that photograph of you was taken in January 1990 then your

belief that you had no moustache in January 1990 is wrong, isn’t
it?
A. If that photo was taken in 1990, yes, you are right.

‘Punctuation’
3.83 This was an important question to underscore the ultimate result of
the preceding cross-examination. This is a good example of
‘punctuation’ by the advocate, to highlight the point for the jury.

Q. In January 1990, in particular on 12 January 1990, then you’re

wrong, aren’t you?
A. On 12 January, yes.

Q. What I want to suggest to you is that the photograph of you was

taken in between the other photographs or some of the other
 photographs at the scene. What do you say about that?
A. I would have no idea.

Know the answer before asking an open-ended question

3.84 This is a good example of the benefits of knowing the answer to an
open-ended question before asking it. The cross-examiner had the
negative strips from the roll of film and accordingly knew the answer
to this question was ‘yes’.

[page 230]

Q. Well if the photograph of you was taken in between some other

photographs at the scene that would mean the photograph of you
was taken at the scene probably, wasn’t it?
A. I would have to say that, yes.

Q. And you would not dispute that, would you?

A. Dispute what?

Q. That it was taken at the scene of that accident where some road
work was done?
A. Them photos?

Q. Yes, the photographs of you?

A. I don’t know where they were taken at. You’re the one telling me.

Q. Mr Milat, I would like to move to a different area. You have told us

that you used the shooter’s licence of Mr Chong to buy some
 firearms?
A. That’s right.

Moving to the next topic

3.85 Tedeschi now lets the witness and the jury know that he is moving
on to another topic — the shooter’s licence in the name of Chong.
Milat agrees that he used the Chong licence to purchase a number of
weapons found in his possession from the Horsley Park Gun Shop,
as well as large quantities of ammunition. The ultimate point being
made here is why would the witness use a shooter’s licence in
someone else’s name to buy guns? Who was this person ‘Chong’ and
where did the licence come from? The cross-examiner would have
anticipated that there was no legitimate reason that the witness
would be able to offer for the use of the Chong licence.

Q. Which firearms did you buy using Mr Chong’s licence?

A. 22.

Q. Which 22?
A. The JW15.

Q. Yes, any others?

A. The 12 gauge.

Q. Which one is that one?

A. The shotgun.

Q. That is the Winchester pump action shotgun?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you buy that on 12 December 1987?
A. I can’t recall the date but it sounds pretty right.

[page 231]

Q. Any others?
A. The Mini.

Q. That is the Ruger Mini 14?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Did you buy that on 25 May 1988?

A. Probably sounds about right.

Q. Any others?
A. I believe there was.

Q. Well can you think of any?

A. There was — I’ve had numerous sorts of guns.

Q. But how many others did you buy with the Chong licence?
A. I believe there was four or five.

Q. What were they?

A. Shotguns, Mini 14s.

Q. You have told us about one Mini 14.

A. I could have even got the other one, I’m not completely certain.
Q. Which other one?
A. I had two Minis.

Q. Two Ruger Mini 14s?

A. That’s right.

Q. Any others?
A. Probably was. I just can’t recall though.

Q. What about a Baikel 22 rifle?

A. The name is familiar.

Q. B-a-i-k-e-l?
A. The name is familiar but I thought it was me shotgun.

Q. Did you buy a Baikel 22 calibre rifle using the Chong licence?
A. I’m pretty sure I bought a Baikel shotgun.

Q. Now, did you buy all of the firearms for which you used the Chong
licence from the Horsley Park Gun Shop?
A. Well, did I buy all the firearms that I have owned — is that what
you said?

[page 232]

Q. No, all of the firearms where you used the Chong licence, did you
buy them all from the Horsley Park Gun Shop?
A. No.
Q. You bought the Winchester pump-action shotgun from there?
A. That’s right.

Q. The Ruger Mini 14?

A. That’s right.

Q. And did you buy the Baikel from there?

A. The Baikel shotgun?

Q. A Baikel from there?

A. I’m sure I did, yes.

Q. Now, have you bought many other firearms from the Horsley Park
Gun Shop?
A. Yes.

Q. How many others?

A. Oh two, three others.

Q. And have you dealt with Mr Abela?

A. Yes.

Q. He has served you sometimes?

A. Yes.

Q. You were a customer of his for ammunition as well as for guns,

weren’t you?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you buy large quantities of ammunition from him?
A. Right.

Q. Like in the tens of thousands from time to time?

A. Once I did, yes.

Q. So he would have every reason to remember you as a good

customer, buying large quantities of ammunition and a number of
guns?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you deal with him each time you bought things at the shop?
A. Most of the time I probably have.

Q. And did you come to know him fairly well?

A. No.

[page 233]

Q. Did he come to know you?

A. No.

Q. See, I suggest to you that he knew you by name as Ivan?

A. He had no idea what me name was.

Q. See, when did you first get hold of the Chong licence?
A. Oh, 87.

Q. In 87 did you have a shooter’s licence in your own name?

A. No.

Q. When did you first get a shooter’s licence in your own name?
A. Some time in the 90s, 91, 92.

Q. Now in 1987 when you first used the Chong licence --

A. Yes.

Q. Sorry, did you first use it in 1987?

A. Yes.

Q. Now at that time — if you could just answer this yes or no — at

that time was there any reason which would have prevented you
from having a licence in your own name?
A. No.

Care and control — ‘answer yes or no’

3.86 It was important for the cross-examiner to ask this question in this
careful way, so as not to cause a mistrial in the event that there was
some reason why the witness could not hold a shooter’s licence, that
might have been prejudicial to him if it came out in the evidence.

Q. So is this the case, that you used the Chong licence even though
you yourself could have got a licence in your own name?
A. That’s right.

Q. Why did you do that?

A. I’ve wondered that meself. I just couldn’t plain be bothered, I
suppose. That was about the only reason.
‘Why?’ — such an elegantly simple question
3.87 The witness having agreed that he used a licence in the name of
someone unknown to him, to purchase a number of guns, it was
important to ask for an explanation. But the cross-examiner should
only invite an explanation in this way when the

[page 234]

cross-examiner knows that there is no satisfactory explanation, as is

the case here, and the result is inevitably one that demonstrates the
witness’s inability and/or unwillingness to explain the true reason.

Q. So you knew that it was breaking the law, using the Chong
licence?
A. Yes.

Q. You were prepared to break the law rather than taking the bother
of getting a licence in your own name?
A. Basically, yes.

A dramatic question to emphasise the point being made

3.88 This was an important point for the cross-examiner to make, and
highlighted the point made in the following series of questions that
the guns would be less likely to be traced to Milat, as the witness
eventually concedes.

Q. Did you know what had happened to Mr Chong — whether he

 was still in Australia?
A. I never even knew there was a person named Chong.

Q. So for all you knew, Mr Chong was going to turn up one day and
try to find out what had happened to his licence?
A. I never thought that at all.

Q. Did you find out how the Chong licence had come to be in the
house at Guildford?
A. No I didn’t.

Q. Did you ask any of your brothers, you know, ‘Where does this
licence come from? Who is this bloke?’
A. No, they never discussed it with me.

The importance of things not done or said

3.89 This question is a good example of drawing out the significance of
inactivity by the witness. To identify the opportunity for such
questions, it is important for the cross-examiner to imagine what an
honest and reasonable person might have done in the situation the
witness was in. This is all part of the constant, deep and intuitive
thinking that an advocate should do both during preparation of a
case and when on their feet in court.

Q. Well, weren’t you concerned to know who this Chong fellow was?
A. When I looked at the name — I always thought it sounded a bit —
as if it was something they made up.

[page 235]
Q. Something they made up?
A. Yes.

Q. Did they tell you that?

A. No.

Q. See, the benefit of the Chong licence was that there was no
reference at all to you or your address, was there?
A. That’s right.

Q. So nobody could ever trace a weapon that had been bought from
the Horsley Park Gun Shop to you whilst you used that licence, is
that right?
A. Oh, I suppose so, yes.

The focusing question

3.90 This question, and the conclusion it draws attention to, clearly
identifies the potential advantage to Milat of using the Chong
licence.

Q. It’s not a question of supposing so, is that right? So long as you

used that licence in the name of Chong and purchased items at the
Horsley Park Gun Shop, there was no way that anybody could
trace any of those weapons to you, is that right?
A. I – I’m not real sure — what did you --

Pinning down the point

3.91 This re-asking of the same question in a way that demands an
 acknowledgement from the witness of the obvious and true
significance of the evidence is an example of good control and timely
persistence by the cross-examiner. There are many other examples
in this cross-examination.

Q. How would anybody have traced one of those firearms to you if

you used the Chong licence?
A. I don’t believe they could.

Q. That’s right. So any weapons that you bought using the Chong
licence were untraceable, is that right?
A. In theory, yes.

Q. In theory and in practice?

A. Well, I’ve got them guns. If they ask me, I’ll just tell them how I got
them.

Q. In theory and in practice these guns that you bought with the
Chong licence were untraceable, weren’t they?
A. Yes.

[page 236]

Persistence
3.92 Again, this question demonstrates the importance of persistence by
the cross-examiner in getting the witness to acknowledge the
significance of the facts.
Q. And I suggest to you that you deliberately used the Chong licence
because any weapons that you purchased were untraceable?
A. No.

Q. And I suggest to you that you purchased a Ruger 10/22 — parts

of which were found in your wall cavity — from the Horsley Park
Gun Shop?
A. I never did.

Groundwork and timing

3.93 This last, vital question is only asked once the necessary groundwork
has been done, and it is asked at precisely the right time in the
sequence of questions.

Q. You told us that you had a licence to drive a motor car and a
motor cycle in the name of Michael Milat?
A. That’s right.

Accumulating consistent themes

3.94 Having asked the witness about his use of a shooter’s licence in the
name of Chong, Tedeschi introduces another example of the witness
using a licence in someone else’s name — this time, a driver’s licence
in the name of Michael Milat, which had Ivan’s picture on it.

Q. When did you first obtain that licence with your photograph on it?
A. I can’t really recall it. 91 — I think 92. I’m not real sure.

Q. And prior to that, for the few years prior to that, going back say to
 1988, had you had any driver’s licence at all?
A. Might have had a motor bike licence. I’m not real sure.

Q. Did you have any licence to drive a car during the time that you
had the Mitsubishi Colt?
A. No.

Q. So you were driving around without any licence to drive a car, is

that what you’re saying?
A. That’s correct.

[page 237]

Q. During that time that you owned the Mitsubishi Colt, were you
entitled to apply for a driver’s licence in your own name?
A. Yes.

Q. Is there any reason why you did not apply for a driver’s licence in
your own name during the time that you owned the Mitsubishi
Colt?
A. There was no reason at all.

Q. So between when you sold the Colt in 87 and when you started
using Michael Milat’s licence or Michael Milat’s name, did you
have any licence to drive a car?
A. I’m not sure what you said there, but I didn’t have a licence
anyway. You mentioned 87.

Q. Were you entitled to apply for a licence in your own name during
 that time?
A. Yes.

Q. Was there any reason during that time why you didn’t apply for a
licence?
A. No reason.

Q. To drive a car?
A. No, no reason at all.

Q. During that time, of course, you were driving the Nissan Patrol?
A. Yes.

Q. And then I think you said it was 1990 or 1991 when you started
using the Michael Milat licence until your arrest in 1994. Did you
have a driver’s licence in your own name?
A. No.

Q. Not at all?
A. No.

Q. And during that time were you entitled to apply for a licence in
your own name?
A. Yes.

Q. Is there any reason during the period 87 to 94 why you didn’t

apply for a licence to drive a vehicle in your own name?
A. No reason at all.

Q. So you preferred to drive without a licence or with a licence in a

 false name rather than putting in an application to have one
yourself, is that right?
A. No.

Q. Well, why did you drive around without a licence during that
period or with a licence in a false name during that period?
A. I did drive around with no licence. It’s not what I preferred.

[page 238]

Q. Just pause there. Mr Milat, why was it that during the period 87 to
94 you either drove without a licence or drove with a licence in a
false name?
A. I believe I was driving since 72 without a licence.

Q. Just listen to my question. Why was it between the period 87 to 94

that you drove around without a licence or with a licence in a false
name?
A. I never had a false licence till 91 or whatever year it was.

Maintaining control
3.95 The witness is not answering the question asked, and the cross-
examiner needs to bring the witness back to it.

Q. So what I am saying to you is that between 87 and 91 you had no

licence?
A. That’s right.
Q. Between 91 and 94 you had a licence in a false name?
A. That’s correct.

Q. So why, during the period 87 to 94 did you drive around with

either no licence or with a licence in a false name?
A. Why, the reason?

Q. Was there a reason?

A. No reason.

Q. No reason?
A. No.

Q. Can’t think of any reason at all? Just answer that yes or no?
A. I just couldn’t work myself up to go and get one. That was about it.

Q. You knew it was illegal to do that?

A. That’s right.

Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you during that period have some view about whether the
government had a right to require you to hold a driver’s licence?
A. Yes.

Q. What was your view about that between 87 and 94?

A. I should go and get one.
 [page 239]

Q. So both in relation to the driver’s licences and shooter’s licences,

you preferred to act illegally during that time rather than exercising
your right to get a perfectly valid legal licence in your own name,
during that period?
A. No.

Q. Is that right?
A. No.

Q. You preferred to act illegally to have either no licence or a licence

in a false name, both in relation to driving and in relation to
purchasing firearms during that period, rather than applying for a
valid legal licence?
A. No.

Q. Is that right?
A. No.

Q. You just couldn’t be bothered, is that what you’re saying?

A. More frightened. I just — I thought of that driver’s licence all them
years and I would have preferred to go and get one. I just couldn’t
work myself up to go and get one.

Q. Is this the case, that in 1987 or 1988 at your place of work, you
started to use the name Bill?54
A. 1988, yes.

Q. That was at Sweeping Services?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did you also work at Boral?

A. That’s right.

Q. Are they two different places or the same place, Boral and
Sweeping Services?
A. Yes, different locations.

Q. So at two different places you used for your work the false name
Bill?55
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you use the name Bill Milat?

A. That’s right.

Q. I think you have told the court your reason for doing so was
because you were worried about your wife taking you to the
cleaners.
A. That’s right.

[page 240]

Q. Had your wife commenced proceedings in the Family Court at that

time?
A. Yes.

Q. Were there proceedings for property?

A. That’s right.
Q. So is this the case, you used that name to try and avoid any court
order that might be made?
A. Yes.
[Here there was legal discussion in the absence of the jury]

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Mr Milat, I was asking you questions about

the guns that you purchased with the Chong licence. Did you purchase
any firearms with the Pittaway licence?56
A. No.

Q. To your knowledge did Walter Milat purchase any firearms with

the Pittaway licence?
A. I know now he has, yes.

Q. See, I suggest to you that back then in 1992 you knew that he was
buying a Ruger 10/22 with the Pittaway licence?
A. No, I didn’t know that.

Q. You of course have seen the Pittaway licence in Guildford?

A. I could have. I can’t really say whether I did or not. Jock might
have showed it to me.

Q. Was the Pittaway licence just lying around in the lounge room at
Guildford?
A. I can’t really recall. I can’t say I’ve really seen it.

Q. Was it common knowledge amongst the inhabitants of the house at

Guildford that the Pittaway licence was there for anyone to use?
A. I’m not really aware of that.

Q. What about SKKs, what did you buy those with, which licence did
you buy them with?
A. Could have been the Chong licence. I’m not real sure. I got one
from a bloke at work.

Q. What, a licence?
A. An SKK.

[page 241]

Q. Who was that?

A. I can’t really recall his name. He was a bloke that only worked on
a casual basis there. He was one of the boss’s cousins, that’s about
the closest I can really recall him.

Q. One of the boss’s --

A. Cousins.

Q. What was the boss’s name?

A. Charlie Pace.

Q. How do you spell that?

A. P-a-c-e.

Q. Was Charlie Pace’s cousin you bought the SKK from?

A. Yes.
Q. And the other one?
A. I could have bought that with the Chong licence. I can’t really
recall.

Q. If you did buy it with the Chong licence where did you buy it?
A. Most probably Horsley Park.

Q. The Horsley Park Gun Shop?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you had Winchester and Eley ammunition stored in the

alcove under Walter’s place?
A. Various brands, yes.

Q. And you had Eley ammunition stored at your home at [XXXXXXXX]

Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. Yes.

Q. And you have heard evidence about the batch numbers on the
boxes of the Winchester and Eley ammunition matching up with
the two boxes that were found at area A. You have heard that
evidence?
A. Yes.

Recapping previous evidence

3.96 Here Tedeschi is reminding the witness (and the jury) of previous
evidence given, in order to set the stage for the questions that follow.
It can be helpful to the jury, and effective advocacy, to do this.
 [page 242]

Q. Have you got any explanation that you would like to give to the
ladies and gentlemen of the jury as to how the same or very similar
batch numbers to boxes of ammunition that you had were found in
the Belanglo State Forest?57
A. What sort of ammo?

Q. There is Winchester Winner ammunition found in the alcove and

Eley ammunition found in the alcove and at [XXXXXXXX] Street
[Eagle Vale]. Have you got any explanation to give the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury why the same or similar batch numbers were
found on the two boxes in the Belanglo State Forest?
A. The same ammo was found in my place, the Winchester and Eley?

Q. No. Either in your place or in the alcove amongst your property?

A. In Wally’s place?

Q. Boxes of ammunition in your property in the alcove or at

[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] were the same or almost the same
as the two boxes found at area A in the Belanglo State Forest. Is
there any explanation that you would like to give the jury about
that?
A. I find it very difficult to understand what you are saying. You are
talking about almost the same. I have got no explanation.

Asking questions in parts

3.97 This kind of answer just given by the witness, who is probably either
genuinely confused by the question or else feigning confusion,
simply requires the cross-examiner to go back a step and set out
 clearly the component elements of the question, which Tedeschi
does and obtains the desired answer; namely, that the witness has no
explanation. The evidence as to the finding of ammunition was
substantial, and clarity is required when dealing with this kind of
dense material. Tedeschi achieves clarity by breaking the questions
down into a series of simple questions, in respect of each of which
the witness can offer no explanation.

Q. Mr Milat, there was some Eley ammunition that was found in the
Sarnia box in the fourth bedroom, right?58
A. Correct, yes.

[page 243]

Q. The Eley boxes found in the Sarnia box in the fourth bedroom had
the same batch numbers as the ammunition box that was found in
the Belanglo State Forest. Is there any explanation you would like
to give for that?
A. I’ve got no explanation. I admit I owned Eley ammunition.

Q. There was also Eley ammunition found in the alcove at [XX

XXXXXX] Drive, Hilltop with the same batch number. Is there any
explanation that you would like to give about that?
A. The same thing. I don’t know nothing about it. I accept what you’re
saying.

Q. You accept that the ammunition was found amongst your property?
A. No.
Q. I suggest to you that there were Winchester Winner ammunition
boxes found — to be fair to you, Mr Milat, the Eley ammunition
was manufactured either on the same day, 23 March 1979 as the
box found in the forest, or three days later on 26 March because
the number is difficult to read. Do you wish to make any comment
on that?
A. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t, that’s what you’re saying?

Correcting an inaccuracy in a question

3.98 The cross-examiner here has realised that his previous question
about the Eley ammunition was imprecise, and in fairness to the
witness, and properly so, he re-phrases the question accurately.

Q. I am saying the box in the forest was manufactured either on the

same day as the box at your place and at the alcove or three days
later. Is there any comment would you like to make about that?
A. I’ve got no explanation for it.

Q. The Winchester Winner ammunition that was found at [XX XXXXXX]

Drive, Hilltop59 has exactly the same batch number as the box
found at area A in the Belanglo State Forest.60 Is there any
explanation that you can give to the jury for that?
A. What’s it got to do with me? I’ve got no explanation.

Q. What I suggest to you, Mr Milat, is you were present there at area

A and you were involved in the deaths of Anja Habschied and
Gabor Neugebauer and that you either alone or with another or
other persons left those two ammunition boxes in the forest thinking
that they could never be traced to you. What do you say to that?
A. You are wrong. I weren’t there, I was at [XX XXXXXXXX XXXX]
 Road [Guildford] on that day, on the 26th.

[page 244]

Putting the prosecution’s case

3.99 This last question puts to the witness the conclusion that the Crown
will be inviting the jury to draw from the evidence of the
ammunition just given.

Q. You have admitted that that green and orange tent with a green fly
is yours?
A. Yes.

Q. Does the photograph of you in folder 2 showing you standing near

a tent show that very same tent?61
A. I’m not sure what photo. I know one was tendered but I don’t get a
real good look at them.

Q. We will show it to you, that’s no problem. Have a look at folder 2

tab D, pages 5 and 6 (shown). You see that photo?
A. Which one?

Q. Page 5?
A. B?

Q. No, D5. Does that show you with the very same tent?
A. The tent there which I will say is mine, I would not like to hazard a
guess. The only reason I say mine is I know I owned a green tent.
Q. Do you remember that trip to Wombeyan?
A. I’ve been to Wombeyan lots of times.

Q. Do you remember that trip?

A. That particular trip?

Q. No --
A. No, all I’ve got to say is it’s between 1987 and 1992.

Q. Do you remember the green tent?

A. I’ve owned a green tent since about 1984.

Q. Does that tent look as though it is yours?

A. Oh, I would say it is mine.

Q. (Counsel approached.) I show you exhibit L which is Carolynne

Milat’s photo album, that is the wife of William Milat. Would you
have a look at the photos that I show you now with some 4-wheel
drive vehicles?
A. Yes.

[page 245]

Q. Would you tell the court if you remember this trip, do you appear
in some of the photographs, is that right?
A. Yeah, I appear in some of the photographs.

Q. Do you remember that trip?

A. I’ve been there lots of times, I probably do.
Q. Do you recognise those photographs as photographs that you
took?
A. I remember when the vehicles got bogged there, yes.

Q. Did you take these photographs, starting with the 4-wheel drive
vehicles?
A. Quite possibly, yes.

Good use of photographs here and following

3.100 To confirm Milat’s presence at Wombeyan at Easter, 1991, and the
fact that he had lambswool car seat covers (Onions had described the
seats of ‘Bill’s’ vehicle as having lambswool covers).

Q. Is it your writing on the back of this first photograph?

A. Looks like it, yes.

Q. ‘Wombeyan 31.3.91’?
A. Yes, with dots in the middle between the numbers, yes.

Q. Do you date your photographs when you give them away to

someone?
A. Sometimes I do, yes.

Q. You would not write the wrong date on them, would you?
A. Not intentionally.

Q. Not intentionally, no. Do you remember going away for Easter

1991 to Wombeyan?
A. Yes, vaguely, yes.
Q. Does it seem to be that trip that is shown in those photographs, in
this album, that trip to Wombeyan at Easter 1991?
A. I would say that’s it by the dates on them.

Q. In those photographs there is a photograph of your Nissan 4-wheel

drive with some lambswool seat covers on them, on the front seats?
A. I never recall it, but I’m sure there would be.

Q. Is this the case, that you had a set of lambswool seat covers for the
front seats of that Nissan?
A. I put them on just after I got the car.

[page 246]

Q. Did you keep them on until you sold it?

A. That’s correct.

Q. I think you said that at the end of December 1990 that a bullet was
fired inside the Nissan that caused some damage to one of those
seat covers?
A. Not that you would notice.

Probing the unusual — the incident causing the bullet hole in

Milat’s Nissan
3.101 Tedeschi now explores with the witness the circumstances
surrounding a repaired bullet hole police found when they
forensically examined the Nissan Patrol that had been Milat’s at the
relevant times, and questions the witness as to why he had the repair
done by El-Hallak (who was not a professional panel repairer). He
 also probes for indications that the witness may not be telling the
truth about this, by asking questions as to whether he did the kinds
of things one might expect an honest and reasonable person to have
done after such an ‘accident’. It was clear, from the vehicle log that
Milat had kept, that the door had been repaired on 29 December
1991, only a few days after the disappearance of Neugebauer and
Habschied on Boxing Day (26th December 1991).62 The Crown
postulated that there may have been a struggle involving Milat and
Neugebauer and/or Habschied in which a gun may have been fired
inside the car.

Q. No, but a bullet did go through it?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Did you repair that damage?

A. No.

Q. Did you repair the damage to the seat?

A. No.

Q. I think in fact, to be fair to you Mr Milat, it was in December of ‘91

that the bullet was fired inside the Nissan, is that right, and it was
repaired in January ‘92.
A. Yes.

Q. Did you find out if Mr El-Hallak had done any body work on cars
before?
A. What do you mean ‘find out’?

Q. Before you asked him to repair your car, did you ask him if he had
 ever done any panel beating work on cars before?
A. No.

[page 247]

Q. Were you concerned that he may or may not be able to do a

proper job?
A. Not at all.

Q. Weren’t you concerned about getting a decent proper workman-

like job done on the damage to the door in your Nissan?
A. He seemed to be a competent enough bloke.

Q. See, I suggest to you that you got Mr El-Hallak to repair the

damage because that bullet had been fired during a struggle
inside the car?
A. You’re wrong.

Q. I suggest to you that it was during a struggle during the abduction

of Gabor Neugebauer and Anja Habschied, what do you say to
that?
A. You’re wrong again.

Q. You say that that bullet was fired when you were either putting a
gun into the car or pulling it out?
A. That’s right.

Q. Which gun was it?

A. The JW.
Q. The JW15 that’s in evidence?63
A. Yes.

Q. Does it have a safety catch?

A. Oh, it probably has. I can’t recall now.

Q. Let’s have a look. Would you have a look at this gun please? (Gun
handed to witness.) Is there a safety catch on that firearm?
A. Doesn’t appear to be one.

Q. Could you tell us the exhibit number please? It is just in green on

the butt.
A. HW.

Q. Where was it that this bullet was fired, according to you, in the
Nissan?
A. What do you mean ‘Where was it?’

Q. Would you tell the court where your vehicle was when the bullet
was accidently fired?
A. Down at Wombeyan.

Q. I suppose that the other people that were there, that they got a
terrible shock when a bullet was fired inside a vehicle?
A. There was no one with us.

[page 248]

A missed opportunity?
3.102 Sometimes even the most skilled cross-examiner will overlook an
opportunity. Milat’s use of the word ‘us’ here may have been a
significant clue that perhaps he wasn’t alone when the gun went off.
Tedeschi may have been able to make much of the witness’s use of a
plural pronoun here. Indeed, in the tense atmosphere of the
courtroom it passed by the entire prosecution team. It is perhaps
worth saying that even the very best advocates will almost always
think of things that they might have asked, after the cross-
examination is completed — this is why experience is such a good
teacher.

Q. There was no one there?

A. No.

Q. You were entirely on your own?

A. That’s right.

Q. When was the next time that you saw a member of your family?
A. The same day.

Q. Who was that?

A. Everybody — like I went up to Wally’s then and then went home.

Q. You went to Wally’s?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell Wally what had happened?

A. That’s right.
Q. You told him?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you say to Wally?

A. That I — that the gun went off and hit me door.

Q. The gun went off and what?

A. The gun went off and hit me door.

Q. Did you tell anyone else?

A. I’m not sure whether — well, whoever was there. I don’t know
whether his wife seen the damage or whether Richard was there.

Q. And how long after Boxing Day ‘91 was it that you had this
unfortunate accident in which a bullet was fired inside the Nissan?
A. I believe it was the 29th.

[page 249]

Q. The 29th?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you have a look at the manual for your car which is exhibit
S. Before that is shown to you, can you tell us — did you go from
your home to Wombeyan?
A. That’s right.

Q. And where did you go after Wombeyan?

A. Back home.
Q. Back home?
A. Yeah, via Wally’s.

Q. And where did you go after home?

A. That day?

Q. No, in the next few days.

A. Oh, rushing about generally. I couldn’t really — I couldn’t really
say. It mustn’t have been too important, otherwise I’d remember it.

Q. Did you do any serious travelling?

A. I believe — oh, I could have. I probably did.

Q. Would you have a look at the manual exhibit S. (Exhibit S handed

to witness.) Look at the back of it where you have got your log?64
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see on 21 December 1991 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- you have done something to your differential and gear box?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have registered the miles as 71,627 kilometres?

A. That’s right, yeah.

Q. Now on 30 December 1991 you have written down ‘73,600

kilometres’, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if that’s correct, then in nine days you have done almost 2,000
kilometres?
A. We don’t believe that’s correct.

[page 250]

Q. I said, if that’s correct, you have done almost 2,000 kilometres,

agree?
A. If it’s correct, yes.

Q. Now on 6 January 1992 you have written down ‘73,034’?

A. That’s right.

Q. Now if that’s correct then in the sixteen days between 21

December 1991 and 6 January 1992 you have done 1400
kilometres?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, do you think that the 1400 might be right or the 2000?
A. I can’t — I don’t know why this 73,600 is there. We believe — I
think that one is a mistake.

Q. Let’s assume that the 6 January one is correct.

A. I’d say that one is, yes.

Q. Would you tell the court where you have gone, where you have
 been to clock up about 1400 kilometres?
A. Could be every --

Q. Just over 1400 kilometres.

A. I could have went anywhere.

Q. It’s quite a few kilometres, isn’t it, 1400 kilometres in ten days?
A. I’m on holidays. I assume — I presume I’d go anywhere.

Q. Did you go anywhere that you can remember?

A. I don’t know. I could have went back to the block. Could have
went anywhere.

Q. You just have no idea.

A. Not pacifically. I just drive around.

Q. Did you have a girlfriend at that stage?

A. I could have.

Q. In between your split up with Karen and starting your relationship

with Chalinder, did you have a girlfriend from time to time?
A. Yes.

Q. Might you have been with your girlfriend at that time?

A. I — I don’t really know.

[page 251]

Q. Can you give any explanation to the jury as to where you went to
 clock up 1400 kilometres?
A. Well, I could of drove anywhere. If I have to drive down to visit
Wally or go down the block two or three times, I’ll soon put a lot of
miles on.

Q. You don’t think that you were on an extended hunting trip?

A. No.

Q. Incidentally, was the Nissan insured?

A. Third party only.

Q. Did you have any insurance at all?

A. No.

Q. On the Nissan itself?

A. No.

Q. Is this the case that from time to time you carried a gun box in the
car?
A. A what?

Q. A gun box in the back of the car?

A. That suitcase?

Q. Well, did you have any gun box in the back of the car from time to
time?
A. The only box with a gun would be that black powder revolver, the
suitcase.

Q. You sometimes carry that in the back of the car?

A. Yeah, yes.

Q. Did you carry it there regularly?

A. No, not regularly. But every time I went shooting with it, yes, that
would be about it.

Q. I think that you told us that Mr El-Hallak in fact did a rather poor
job on the paint work and you had to get it done professionally?
A. That’s right.

Q. Whereabouts did you get it done professionally?

A. At a panel beater’s shop. It’s called Charlie’s. It’s opposite the
Wentworthville Leagues Club. I think there’s a Nissan or there’s a
car dealership pretty close to it, right next to it on the Great
Western Highway.

Q. You recall you were asked whether your green and orange tent
and the green tent fly was ever in a hessian bag and you said no?
A. That’s right.

[page 252]

Q. Would you have a look at this hessian bag and some rags in a
plastic bag. I will open it up for you to look at, (shown exhibit HM)
and I also show you exhibit HO, the rags that were also found
inside the hessian bag at [XXXX] Street [Hilltop]65 (shown). Are
those the tent pegs and ropes that go with your tent?66
A. They look like them, yes.

Q. I think you told the court you never saw a tent in a hessian bag?
A. That’s right.

Q. Is this the case, you used to store your tent at Guildford?

A. That’s right, yes.

Q. Whereabouts did you used to store it at Guildford?

A. Either in me room or the garage.

Q. Did you sometimes have your tent in a louvre door cupboard?

A. No.

Q. Did you know there was a louvre door cupboard on the back
verandah?
A. Yes, I have seen them there.

Q. Have you ever looked inside that louvre door cupboard?

A. Not that I recall. I could have.

Q. Were you aware of another louvre door cupboard in the laundry?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did you ever look inside that?

A. Probably — I might have got some powder or something out of
there.

Q. You have heard evidence of a number of items of camping

equipment belonging to back packers found at your brother
Richard’s place?
A. Yes.
Q. In the same cupboard as your green and orange tent?
A. That’s right.

[page 253]

Q. You have heard evidence your tent was inside the hessian bag,
together with the rags there?
A. That’s right.

Q. I suggest you were the one who brought that camping equipment
to Guildford, the camping equipment found at your brother
Richard’s place. What do you say to that?
A. My green tent?

Q. No, the other camping equipment that was found with your green
tent at Richard’s.
A. No, I don’t know. I have never seen it before. I don’t know.

Q. *I suggest to you that Richard moved not just your green tent, but
the other items of camping equipment found with it, and that you
had brought that equipment to Guildford. What do you say to that?
A. No, you are wrong.

MARTIN: The form of the question was a bit of a double bunger. I

would ask if that could be clarified.
(Question marked * and answer above read.)

HIS HONOUR: I think it is a double question.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. I suggest to you found at [XXXX] Street

[Hilltop] in the same cupboard as your tent, was Caroline Clarke’s blue
three man nylon tent, her Karrimat sleeping mat and her blue and
orange Ultimate brand sleeping bag. I suggest to you brought that
camping equipment to Guildford?
A. I didn’t.

Q. Also found in the same cupboard was Joanne Walters’ blue and
lilac Carribee Blaze model sleeping bag? I suggest you brought
that to Guildford?
A. I didn’t.

Q. Found at Guildford was the yellow grandfather T-shirt, exhibit HU.

You have heard that in evidence?67
A. I have heard that, yes.

Q. That was found on the work bench, together with some blue and
yellow hospital gown material, which were rags, and some green
hospital drapes which were rags. Do you recall that evidence?
A. Yes.

[page 254]

Q. I suggest to you that you caused that yellow grandfather T-shirt to

go to Guildford?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. I suggest to you those rags were rags which were associated with
you?
A. I don’t know nothing about the rags.
Q. You have also heard evidence about the finding of Mr Onions’
Next T-shirt in a red plastic box on the floor of the garage at
Guildford?
A. Yes.

Q. In that very same box is exhibit HX, a shirt which has been
identified as yours. Do you recall that evidence?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree that that blue check shirt is yours?

A. I own shirts like that, I suppose.

Q. I suggest to you that you caused Mr Onions’ Next shirt to go to

Guildford.
A. I don’t know nothing about his neck shirt, or whatever it is.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury why the Next shirt
and your blue check shirt were in the same plastic bag on the floor
of the garage at Guildford?
A. I don’t know whether it’s my shirt but otherwise I have got no
explanation for anything there.

Q. You have also heard evidence about a cavalry sword of your

brother David at Guildford.68
A. Yes.

Q. Did he own that cavalry sword in 1991?

A. I assume he did.

Q. If you had wanted to have access to it would you have been able
 to get access to it?
A. I don’t know.

Q. If you had wanted to have access to it did you have access to it?
A. I really don’t know. What do you mean ‘have access to it’ — go in
and take it?

Q. Was it in his room?

A. I presume it was.

Q. Was his room locked or unlocked, generally?

A. Generally it was locked.

[page 255]

Q. Where was the key kept?

A. Probably up with the other keys.

Q. That meant you had access to that room, if you wanted to?
A. If I wanted to, I suppose, yes.

Q. You have given some evidence about the circumstances in which

you gave the Salewa back pack to your sister in law, Joan?69
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did she ever ask you for a back pack?

A. Not that I can recall, no.

Q. Did you just voluntarily give it to her without any asking by her, or
any other member of her family?
A. She would have been — we would have been talking about the
trip — she would have been telling me about that.

Q. Did she ask you for a back pack for this trip, or anybody else?
A. No.

Q. When was she going for the trip compared to when you gave her
the back pack?
A. Pretty soon.

Q. For all you knew she already had a back pack?

A. I don’t believe she had one.

Q. For all you knew she had bought one.

A. I would have no idea.

Q. I suggest to you that you obtained that back pack during the killing
of Simone Schmidl. I suggest you obtained that back pack, the
Salewa back pack, during the killing of Simone Schmidl?
A. No.

Q. You have given evidence about the unused Ruger 10/22, exhibit
HE. You have heard evidence that was found in the alcove?
A. That’s right.
 [page 256]

Q. You told the court it might have been moved by you during the
move from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] to the alcove?
A. I’m not aware if I did move it.

Q. Is this the case, if you had possession of it then you would have
moved it?
A. I don’t believe I had possession of it.

Q. Is this the case, you assume you had moved it?

A. If it was there, I can assume that.

Q. I suggest to you that you moved all of the firearms in the alcove.
What do you say to that?
A. I moved my own.

Q. I suggest to you, you moved the High Sierra day pack and the
yellow haversack at the same time as you moved the weapons?
A. No, I didn’t.

<WITNESS STOOD DOWN

ADJOURNED TO THURSDAY 20 JUNE 1996

1 The Cadpac Bag was a large synthetic bag with the word ‘Cadpac’ stamped on it — see
Photo 40. It contained a number of various straps including gun slings. Tedeschi wanted to
establish this as the likely source for the leash that formed part of the improvised ‘restraint
device’ found at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene. It also contained an Arno
brand strap of the kind used by hikers to compress bedrolls and sleeping mats — see Photo
41. Simone Schmidl had an strap among her camping gear. It was therefore important to
link the Cadpac bag to Milat.
 The Groenings Bag: Groenings was a company that sold rags in bulk to various industries
2 for commercial purposes. They would collect them from various sources such as charity
organisations (like the Smith Family) and cut the rags on a machine that cut them to various
sizes. Groenings had sold bulk rags to the RTA. Milat had worked for the RTA at the time
of the murders. The importance of this was to establish a possible source of the various
rags found among Milat’s property and also at some of the crime scenes, that appeared to
have been used as gags or blindfolds. In the end, it was not possible to establish whether
or not the rags came from Groenings, but the type and variety of rags found, as well as the
way some of them had been cut, tended to suggest they had come from a commercial
supplier.
3 It was clear from his answers that Milat used to bring rags home from work and these were
likely to have been provided by a commercial supplier. Tedeschi presses the matter subtly
by introducing the notion of keeping the bag ‘stocked up’ with rags from work.
4 The rags used as a gag on Joanne Walters (see, for example, Photo 20) were shirt material
and not bulky material. Ultimately, however, the prosecution was not able to conclusively
establish that any of the rags had come from Milat’s workplace so as to directly link them
to him, nor who had supplied them.
5 See Photo 42.
6 See Photo 43.
7 See Photos 44 and 45.
8 See Photo 46.
9 (1959) 101 CLR 298.
10 See Photo 42.
11 See Photo 43.
12 See Photo 50.
13 See Photo 40.
14 See Photo 47.
15 See Photo 49.
16 See Photo 48, which is the same photograph that was being shown to the witness here.
17 See Photo 42.
18 See Photo 53.
19 See Photo 53.
20 Page 3 is the same as Photo 29.
21 See Photo 53, which is the same photograph that was being shown to the witness here.
22 This and the preceding few questions are establishing background for the purpose of
seeking a Jones v Dunkel direction, as was not uncommon at the time of this trial — see
also 3.7 above.
23 See Photo 55.
24 See Photo 59.
25 See Photo 56.
26 See Photos 57 and 58.
27 The witness is here being shown a close-up enlargement of the photo in which he is
carrying what clearly appears to be a green sleeping bag.
28 See Photo 40, which shows the Cadpac bag in Milat’s garage. The multi-coloured Arno
strap can be clearly seen.
29 See Photo 23.
30 See Photo 4.
31 See Photo 20.
32 Exhibit HZ comprised two pieces of blue rag found on the workbench of the garage at the
Milat Guilford home.
33 Exhibit CU comprised a pair of underpants and pink cloth found in Area A.
34 Exhibit CM was a piece of material believed to have been used as a gag on Neugebauer.
35 Exhibit CT was a piece of a singlet found near a log in Area A at the
Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene.
36 Exhibit JV was a t-shirt with the name ‘Loquat Valley’ on it, cut down the back, which was
found 50 m east of Schmidl’s body.
37 The Crown alleged that the Benetton top shown in the photograph being worn by Ms
Hughes had been owned by Caroline Clarke. A photo of Clarke wearing an identical top
was produced in evidence.
38 See 3.34.
39 See Photo 30.
40 In this other photograph of Milat’s Harley-Davidson, the Colt revolver had been replaced
by Milat’s Colt pistol and the holster has been moved to the front of the bike.
41 The witness agrees that the Colt pistol (as distinct from the Colt revolver) is his.
42 See Photo 15.
43 The reader will recall that Onions gave evidence that he had noticed copper-coloured
bullets in the chamber of the revolver that ‘Bill’ had pointed at him. See also Photo 30,
taken by police to demonstrate the appearance of such bullets in a revolver chamber.
44 The threaded barrel cap would have been suitable to protect the tip of a gun barrel that
had been threaded for the purpose of fitting a silencer. The ballistics evidence in the case
suggested that a silencer may have been used on the Ruger rifle used to shoot Caroline
Clarke, and the evidence also established that the Anschutz rifle had a threaded barrel.
The locating of a threaded barrel cap in the console of Milat’s Jackeroo car (see Photo 37)
was a highly significant piece of evidence in this context. Confronted with this by the cross-
examiner, Milat gives a number of answers following, that seem to be indicative of some
discomfort in explaining this find.
45 See the diagrams of the Anschutz rifle in Appendix 2.
46 See Photo 37.
47 See Photo 60, showing the silencer that Milat had admitted, in his evidence-in chief, he
had made.
48 See Photo 9.
49 See Photo 8.
50 See Photo 22.
51 Milat is suggesting that his brother Walter may have put these items there.
52 The witness is now shown the photograph of himself with a moustache, taken on 12
January 1990.
53 Onions had given evidence that ‘Bill’ had some grey flecks in his side levers, and at the
bottom of his moustache, near the chin area.
54 ‘Bill’ was the name that Onions’ offender had used.
55 Here Tedeschi asks Milat to acknowledge the use of the name ‘Bill’, the name used by
Onions’ offender.
56 The shooter’s licence in the name of Pittaway had been used to purchase the ‘unused’
Ruger 10/22.
57 Among Ivan Milat’s belongings in the alcove at Walter Milat’s house, police found
Winchester Winner brand .22 calibre ammunition with a batch number ACDICF2 on the
box. This was the same as the batch number on the empty box of Winchester ammunition
found at Area A at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene. Also found in the alcove
were 12 packets of Eley .22 calibre ammunition, batch number J23CGA. Ammunition with
this same batch number was also found in bedroom 4 at Eagle Vale. In Area A at the
Neugebauer/Habschied site had been found an Eley ammunition box with a batch number
that could be read in all but one of the characters (which had faded from weathering) —
the number on that box was J2(3 or 6)CGA.
58 See Photo 10.
59 See Photo 62.
60 See Photo 63.
61 Tedeschi here shows the witness a photo of the witness standing beside a green-coloured
tent at a campsite.
62 See Photo 72, taken by police, showing the bullet-hole damage to the inside of the car
door.
63 See Photo 61.
64 The witness had been fastidious about keeping his vehicle log. It was a useful source of
information.
65 Richard Milat’s property at Hilltop.
66 In a louvred door cupboard at Richard Milat’s residence at Hilltop, police had found items
of camping equipment that Ivan Milat did not dispute (in the sense that an admission was
made that this was the only reasonable inference from the evidence) had belonged to
Walters (her Caribee brand sleeping bag: see Photo 65) and Clarke (her Karrimat brand
sleeping mat (see Photo 66), a blue tent and poles (see Photo 67), and her Ultimate brand
sleeping bag: see Photo 68). Also in the cupboard was a green tent with an orange lining,
belonging to Ivan Milat. The cupboard had previously been at the family home at
Guildford at the relevant times of the murders.
67 On a workbench in the garage at the Milat family home at Guildford, where Ivan Milat
had resided at the times of the murders of all of the backpackers, police located a yellow
grandfather-style t-shirt that evidence established had been sold by Hallenstein Brothers in
Christchurch, New Zealand. The prosecution case was that this had been purchased by
Schmidl from Hallenstein Brothers on 20 December 1990: see Photos 69 and 70. Also
found in a box in the garage was a Next brand blue-coloured shirt that Onions identified
as his, having been in his backpack when he escaped from his offender on the Hume
Highway: see Photo 71. In the same box was also located a shirt that Milat acknowledged
was similar to shirts he owned.
68 The cavalry sword was a possible candidate for the weapon used to decapitate Anna
Habschied, but this was never firmly established.
69 The evidence established that this was Schmidl’s Salewa backpack (see Photo 73, which is
a close-up of a portion of a photograph taken on a train showing some of her camping
equipment). Her High Sierra daypack can be seen, as well as the back of her Salewa
brand backpack the pattern of which perfectly matched that handed to police by Alex
Milat’s wife, Joan. Ivan Milat made an admission for the purpose of the trial that the only
reasonable inference to be drawn was that these items had been in Schmidl’s possession at
or immediately before the time of her death.
[page 257]
 CHAPTER 4
DAY THREE OF CROSS-
EXAMINATION
20 JUNE 1996

OVERVIEW
Day three of cross-examination is the final day of cross-examination and
demonstrates those techniques which draw together all the relevant pieces of
evidence that make up the prosecution’s case, including:
highlighting important links;
pinning down the sequence of events;
probing based on the strength of the evidence;
the force of witness numbers — demonstrating that the evidence of the
witness is at odds with the evidence of numerous others;
summing up the effect of previous answers; timing; and
‘punctuation’ and a powerful finish to cross-examination.
Other techniques effectively demonstrated on day three include:
probing an absurd position taken by a witness;
the importance of politeness;
the use of a recording;
knowing when not to challenge the evidence given by a witness;
 testing an alibi; and
establishing the witness’s familiarity with a place.
Directions from the judge are also discussed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

HIS HONOUR: Q. You are still bound by the oath you took earlier in the
week, Mr Milat, do you understand that?
A. Yes, your Honour.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Might the witness be shown exhibit GW, folder

8, tab A, which relates to [XXXXXX] Drive [Hilltop].

Q. Mr Milat, yesterday I took you to page 9 of tab A and I showed

you a blanket in that photograph down towards the bottom of the
pile, and then on page 32 — you see that blanket on page 9?1
A. Yes.

[page 258]

Q. And then on page 32, I showed you the two firearms that were
inside that blanket and you told the court that you had not put
either of those two weapons there in the alcove, is that correct?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now the top firearm is the Anschutz?

A. Yes.

Q. And the bottom firearm is a Winchester 30/30?

A. That’s right.

Q. I think you told the court that you had not put either of those two
firearms in that blanket in the alcove?
A. That’s right.

Q. And I think you told the court that the Winchester 30/30 was not
yours?
A. That’s right.

Q. I think in fact you said that you had never owned a Winchester
30/30 yourself?
A. That’s right.

Q. Have you ever had possession of a Winchester 30/30?2

A. I’ve used them, yes.

Q. Have you ever had them at your home?

A. Yes.

Q. In [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever played around with a Winchester 30/30?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever used a Winchester 30/30?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever fired a Winchester 30/30?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever had an extended possession of a Winchester

30/30?
A. No, I couldn’t say that.

[page 259]

Q. Have you had possession of a Winchester 30/30 at around the

time that you moved the gear from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]
to the alcove?
A. I possibly have used them, yes.

Q. Have you had possession of one at around the time that you
moved your guns from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] to the
alcove?
A. Did I have one in my hand?

Q. Have you had possession of a Winchester 30/30 at around the

time that you moved your guns from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale] to the alcove?
A. I could have.

Q. See, I suggest to you that that Winchester in the photograph is

yours?
A. No it’s not.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Positive.
Q. I would like to show you some photographs from MFI 9, which you
have told the court is your album?
A. That’s right.

Q. The one with the photocopy of you in a cowboy outfit on the front?
A. That’s right.

Q. (Approached.) Firstly, I show you this photograph here?

A. Yes.

Use of photographs
4.1 The cross-examiner here shows Milat a photograph from Milat’s
album, depicting the witness with a Winchester 30/30 lever action
rifle.

Q. Does that show you in the lounge room at [XXXXXXXX] Street

[Eagle Vale]?
A. That’s right.

Q. And are you dressed up in your cowboy outfit?

A. Supposed to be a cowboy outfit, yes.

Q. And are you holding a Winchester 30/30 rifle?

A. Yes.

[page 260]

Q. I will take that photograph out. Are there other photographs taken
 in the same location in the lounge room at [XXXXXXXX] Street
[Eagle Vale] showing you in your cowboy outfit either holding or
next to a Winchester 30/30 rifle?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, this one here, can you see the Winchester 30/30 very
clearly?
A. Yes.

Q. I will take that one out. Would you turn over the page, in this
photograph is there some ammunition on the table next to you?
A. Oh, most probably.

Q. In these two photographs can you see some boxes of ammunition?

A. Yes.

Q. What type of ammunition is it in the box next to you?

A. Would be 30/30 I imagine.

Q. Is it a red and white box of Winchester 30/30 ammunition?

A. Yeah, looks like it, yes.

Q. In other words, ammunition suitable for the Winchester 30/30 that

you are holding in your hand?
A. Yeah, that’s right.

Q. Perhaps if you could hold those two photographs, just take out this
photograph which you have admitted shows some ammunition on
the table next to you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you another photograph, does that show you sitting on a
chair in the same location, in the same outfit with some Winchester
— what appears to be Winchester ammunition right next to you on
the chair?
A. Yes.

MFI #119 ABOVEMENTIONED FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS

Q. Would you have a look at this firearm please? Do you recognise

that as a Winchester 30/30 rifle?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that the Winchester 30/30 rifle that you were holding when
those photographs were taken?
A. I don’t think so.

Q. I suggest to you that that was the Winchester 30/30 rifle that was
found in the alcove?
A. This one?

[page 261]

Q. Mmm?
A. It probably is.

Q. You don’t dispute that?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Now when do you say you moved the items, the guns, the
 ammunition and all the other items, from your place at [XXXXXXXX]
Street [Eagle Vale] to the alcove?
A. Either before or after Christmas.

Q. 1993?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you have possession of a Winchester 30/30 rifle after you

had moved your guns to the alcove?
A. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘possession’ — like have one in my
house or just a lend of one?

Q. I’ll be more specific, Mr Milat. Were those photographs taken

before or after you moved your guns to the alcove?
A. I’m — I’m not real sure. I think they may have been moved just
before it — taken before the move.

Q. So those photographs were taken just before the move of the guns
to the alcove, is that right, is that what you are saying?
A. From what I can recall, yes.

Finding and highlighting important links

4.2 The witness is asked to confirm his recollection that the photograph
of him dressed as a cowboy and holding the Winchester 30/30 rifle
was taken not long before his various guns were moved to the alcove
at Walter’s home. This links the witness, by inference arising from
the circumstances, more closely with the 30/30 rifle found in the
alcove.
 I show you MFI 119. (Approached.) Do you agree that there is a
Q.
date on the back of each of those photographs?
A. Yes.

Q. On each of those photographs have you written the date?

A. Looks like my writing, yes.

Q. And is the date that is written on them the 16 January 1994?

A. Yes.

[page 262]

Q. Does that suggest to you that the guns were moved from your
house to the alcove shortly after 16 January 1994?
A. I’d say so, yes.

Q. You also gave evidence that the reason why you moved the guns
from your place to the alcove was that some of your workmates
had been questioned by the police about guns and that they had
notified you of that?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now, you told us the names of your friends, you said it was Mr De
Silva, Mr Wild and Mr Borthwick?
A. That’s right.

Q. If Mr De Silva and Mr Borthwick were spoken to by the police in

early February 1994 and Mr Wild was spoken to by the police on
17 January 1994, would that further assist you in coming to the
 conclusion that the move of the guns from your place to the alcove
was not until after those photographs were taken on 16 January
1994?
A. Yeah, I said that they were taken — we moved after the photos
were taken.

Pinning down the sequence of events; establishing

groundwork
4.3 This question uses other established evidence to narrow the
timeframe between the date of the photographs showing Milat with
the Winchester 30/30 and the moving of Milat’s guns to Walter’s
alcove. The clear implication is that the Winchester 30/30, like all of
the other guns shown in the photograph, belonged to the witness,
although he denies this. The implication is strengthened by the fact
that the witness agreed that the Winchester 30/30 ammunition in the
photograph was his, yet none was found when police searched his
home at Eagle Vale, and the only 30/30 ammunition found was in
the alcove inside the High Sierra day pack that had belonged to
Simone Schmidl. Walter Milat had given evidence to the court that
all of the property under the cover in the alcove belonged to Ivan
Milat, and that once it was placed there, the alcove had been
padlocked. He also told the court that the items seized from the
alcove by police were the same items that he, Richard, and Ivan had
put there. Richard Milat had given evidence to the court that he
might have had access to the alcove while no-one was there. The
cross-examination that follows about the 30/30 ammunition is a very
tradesman-like demonstration of asking questions in the correct
order and establishing the groundwork before putting the key
propositions that the cross-examiner wants to confront the witness
with.
Q. All right. Now those photographs show you holding a Winchester
30/30 rifle?
A. That’s right.

Q. And found in the alcove was a Winchester 30/30 rifle?

A. Yes, yes.

[page 263]

Q. You heard that evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. I suggest to you that the Winchester 30/30 rifle that was found in
the alcove is the same Winchester 30/30 rifle that is shown in the
photographs of you in your cowboy outfit?
A. I don’t think so, no.

Q. Do you think it might be?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure that it is a different firearm?

A. Yes.

Q. Now who was it that took those photographs of you?

A. They were taken a couple of times, one of me brothers, Richard.

Q. Richard took them?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you take photos of Richard at the same time?
A. I could’ve.

Q. Why were those photographs taken?

A. I was trying to make up some cowboy pictures just to put in me
album.

Q. Do you agree that it shows you holding another firearm as well?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact I think some other firearms?

A. Yes, I see another firearm there.

Q. And those other firearms are all yours?

A. Yes.

Q. I suggest to you that the Winchester 30/30 was yours?

A. The Winchester is not mine.

Q. I suggest to you the Winchester 30/30 was yours?

A. It’s not mine.

Q. The ammunition — the Winchester 30/30 ammunition that one

can see in those photographs, was that your ammunition?
A. Yes, I had a quantity of that.

Q. What did you do with your Winchester 30/30 ammunition?

A. When I borrowed me brother’s 30/30 I supplied my own ammo,
it’s pretty expensive.
 [page 264]

Q. What did you do with your own ammo?

A. Shoot it.

Q. The ammunition that is shown in that photograph, what did you do

with that?
A. I’m not sure what you mean.

Q. Did you use it?

A. Some of it, yes, I used some of it.

Q. What did you do with the rest, the part you did not use?
A. I kept at my place.

Q. Whereabouts did you keep it?

A. In me house.

Q. Whereabouts in your house?

A. I believe on the cupboard in the spare room.

Q. In the fourth bedroom?

A. Could have been there, yes.

Q. And when the move took place to the alcove, what did you do with
the ammunition?
A. I probably left it there. Some could have went. I’m not real sure.

Q. Well, I suggest to you that when the police searched your home on
 22 May 1994, there was no 30/30 ammunition found at your
home, what do you say to that?
A. I’m sure there was 30/30 there. You might be right. I thought I had
some there.

Q. I show you exhibits GY and GZ, which is the blue High Sierra day
pack and its contents found in the alcove (shown.) Do you see in
the contents there is some 30/30 ammunition?
A. Yes, you’re telling me this.

Q. Do you have any explanation to give to the jury why on 16

January 1994 you are shown in a photograph holding a
Winchester 30/30 with some Winchester 30/30 ammunition.
By 22 May 19943 there is no Winchester 30/30 rifle at your
home, but there is one in the alcove with your other property and
at your home there is no Winchester 30/30 ammunition, but in the
High Sierra day pack there is.
Do you have any explanation to give to the jury for that?
A. I have no explanation really. I know I had 30/30 ammo.

Q. Do you agree that a very readily acceptable explanation is that

you placed the Winchester 30/30 rifle into the alcove and that
you placed the 30/30 ammunition into the High Sierra day pack
and put it in the alcove?
A. No.

[page 265]

Question in the nature of a submission

4.4 This is a good question, suggesting a ‘very readily acceptable
explanation’ to the witness, after the witness has failed to give one.
The phrasing of the question is such as to effectively also foreshadow
the material for a submission that will likely be made in the cross-
examiner’s closing address to the jury. The witness appears to be
distancing himself from having had anything to do with the High
Sierra day pack.

Q. That’s a logical explanation, isn’t it?

A. Not to me it’s not.

Q. Well, I suggest to you that that’s what happened?

A. You’re wrong.

Q. Now at the time that those photographs were taken on 16 January

1994 how many rifles did you have at your place?
A. Oh, six or seven I suppose.

Q. So you were not short of rifles to have in a photograph, were you?

A. I never had no cowboy-type ones, if that’s what you mean.

Q. See, I suggest to you that you took those photographs with guns
that belonged to you?
A. The Winchester wasn’t mine.

Q. Well, did you wrap up the Winchester in that blanket together with
the Anschutz?
A. No.

Q. I suggest, that you did?

A. I didn’t.

Q. The black powder revolver is a cowboy gun, isn’t it?

A. That’s right.

Q. And is included in some of those photographs?

A. That’s right.

A good intuitive question

4.5 Milat had always admitted to owning the black powder revolver. It
was a cowboy-style gun. The implication is that the witness (one of
whose nicknames was ‘Tex’) may have owned other cowboy-type
guns, such as the Winchester 30/30 lever action rifle.

[page 266]

Q. Mr Milat, I would like to ask you some questions about your arrest
on 22 May and your questioning by the police. You have told the
court that the night before you had spoken to Deborah Milat on the
phone?
A. That’s right.

Q. Is that the night of the 21st?

A. That’s right.

Changing themes smoothly

4.6 This is a good example of a smooth change of topics; the cross-
 examiner, having finished the previous line of questions, moves on
to the next topic. But in doing so, he appropriately lets the witness
(and also the jury) know that he is moving on by clearly indicating
the topic he will now be asking questions about.

Q. And she had told you that police were making enquiries about one
of your cars. Just answer that yes or no?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you subsequently speak to your brother, William?

A. He rang up hours and hours later.

Q. I think he rang up — I think you said at 2 o’clock in the morning or

something like that?
A. Something around that time.

Q. If you would answer this question yes or no — did he also tell you
that police were making enquiries about one of your vehicles?
A. Amongst other things, yes.

Q. Now the very next morning the police rang up at your home and
told you that in fact your place is surrounded?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now I suggest to you that your first thought was the police were
interested in your car. Could you answer that yes or no?
A. No.

Q. And I suggest to you that when you first thought about your car that
you thought about any firearm that you had in your car at that time
 — that’s in the Jackeroo?
A. No.

Q. And I suggest to you that you went to your Jackeroo and took out
the Browning pistol because your first thought was that the police
were interested in your car?
A. No.

[page 267]

Q. And I suggest to you that you took the Browning pistol and in an
act of desperation attempted to hide it under the washing machine
in your laundry?
A. No.

Q. Did you go in to the garage at all on the morning the police came
to your home, 22 May 1994?
A. No.

Q. Not for any reason whatsoever?

A. Not for any reason whatever.

Q. So prior to you exiting the house on instructions from the police you
had not been into the garage at all for any reason that morning?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Is this what you tell the court, that the phone call in fact, the first
phone call came when you were in bed?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you asleep?
A. Yes.

Q. So that first phone call woke you up?

A. That’s right.

Q. Have you got any explanation to give to the jury why two police
officers heard a door opening into the garage and the sound of a
car door opening and closing?
A. I have no idea. The first I heard about it was when they come up,
you know, a little while ago, a couple of weeks ago, months ago.

Q. And your girlfriend, Chalinder Hughes, did she go into the garage
at all?
A. I don’t believe so. I don’t think so.

Q. Did you see her going into the garage at all or hear her going into
the garage at all?
A. No.

Q. Now, after you were placed under arrest you were taken back into
the house and you showed the police the different rooms in the
house?
A. That’s right.

Q. You told them which room belonged to whom?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And then there was intermittent conversation between you and Sgt
Leach, is that right?
A. Very little conversation, you know.

[page 268]

Q. There was conversation with Sgt Leach, wasn’t there?

A. Not really, no.

Q. What, didn’t Sgt Leach speak to you at all — was it just silence?
A. He asked me the odd question every now and again.

Q. Yes, all right. Then you were taken to Campbelltown police station
and two interviews were recorded?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now Mr Milat, I do not mean to be insulting at all, but is this the

case, that during those interviews you were in effect playing dumb?
A. About what?

The importance of politeness

4.7 This question has, appropriately, been politely framed. The
prosecutor was suggesting that the witness had intentionally ‘played
dumb’ about matters when asked questions by the police, and it was
legitimate for the prosecutor to explore this. To have done so rudely
(for example, by asking, ‘you were just playing dumb with the police
weren’t you?’) would likely have brought the questioning on the
point to an unhelpful standoff. Politely asked, it enabled the issue to
be explored in more depth, and provided an effective introduction to
the playing in court of the extract from the witness’s recorded
interview with police, which the cross-examiner would suggest
 demonstrated that the witness was deliberately pretending not to
understand the questions.

Q. You were playing dumb with the police?

A. I didn’t know what they were talking about.

Q. Well you see, you have responded to all of my questions in this

courtroom over three different days now. You do not appear to
have any difficulty understanding my questions?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you agree that you conveyed the impression during that
interview of not being able to understand their questions?
A. I’m not sure what you mean or getting at?

Q. I am suggesting to you that you were deliberately playing dumb

with the police during these two videoed interviews?
A. In what way?

Q. By pretending that you did not understand their questions or did

not follow their questions. What do you say to that?
A. No.

[page 269]

Q. You deny that?

A. Yeah. I’m not sure, I do not know — what are you talking about?

Q. I am suggesting you were pretending to be lacking any

 understanding — to use a neutral phrase — and that that was
deliberate on your part during these two interviews?
A. Like I’m acting now? I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

Q. No, what I am suggesting, your understanding in this courtroom is

far superior to the apparent understanding that you conveyed in
the interviews. What do you say to that?
A. If they asked me a question I would answer it.

Q. Let us have a look at the beginning of the first interview —

incidentally, was your hearing at that time any worse than it is
now?
A. Oh, I don’t know.

Q. Or was it the same as it is now?

A. I’m not real sure. I don’t know. I wouldn’t — you know, wouldn’t
be much difference I suppose.

EXHIBIT EO PLAYED TO THE COURT

Q. Mr Milat, do you agree that there is a vast difference between your

performance in that interview and your performance here in this
courtroom?
A. In what way?

Using a recording to confront the witness and the importance

of timing
4.8 Here the cross-examiner has introduced the recording after putting
a number of questions to the witness about his attitude of ‘playing
dumb’ during the questioning, which the witness denied. Eliciting
 this evidence first increases the impact of the playing of the
recording, because by this time the jury members are now well aware
of what is being suggested to the witness, and they know now what
to look for and can draw their own conclusions from the way in
which the witness presents in the recording. This is far more
effective than playing the recording first and then asking questions
about the witness’s attitude. In this recorded interview, police read to
the witness the notebook entry of the conversation between
Detective Sergeant Leach and Milat at the time of the arrest and
search at Eagle Vale, recording the questions asked by police and
answers given by Milat. Milat asserted that he had not been
cautioned by the police, but the police evidence was that he had been
cautioned, and Milat’s responses to police questions at Eagle Vale
were admitted into evidence.

Q. I suggest to you that you have shown a much greater capacity to

respond to questions in this courtroom?
A. Oh, I agree with that, yes.

[page 270]

Q. Or were you deliberately trying not to respond to the questions?

A. I didn’t want to have the interview at all.

Q. Were you deliberately playing dumb?

A. I didn’t want to have the interview at all. I said that.

Q. Were you deliberately playing dumb?

A. They were playing dumb.
Q. Were you deliberately playing dumb?
A. No.

Q. I suggest you were?

A. I wasn’t.

Q. I would like to take you to the second interview, which is exhibit

ER.

HIS HONOUR: Members of the jury, the transcript is exhibit E2, if you
have a copy there.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Mr Milat, were you playing dumb during

this second interview?
A. No.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: It is not at the beginning, I think in fairness I

should play it from the beginning.

EXHIBIT ER PLAYED TO THE COURT

Q. Mr Milat, do you agree that during that part of the interview, up to

question 20, that you were pretending a lack of understanding?
A. I was not pretending nothing.

Q. I suggest to you that you were deliberately playing dumb?

A. I was asserting me right. I told him before we started I didn’t want
to do it and I am virtually forced to do it.

Q. What happened after that was that Det Gordon read out to you
from his official police notebook an account of the conversation
which the police had with you at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale],
 is that right?
A. I never had no conversation with them at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale].

Q. You did say some things to them, didn’t you?

A. They’d ask me questions.

Q. And you would answer those questions?

A. Yes.

Q. Then when you got to the police station Det Snr Const Gordon,
who had made some notes at the police station, read out to you
those notes?
A. At the police station?

[page 271]

Q. At the police station during this interview?

A. Yes, he — that’s what he was telling me he was doing.

Q. He read out to you some notes that he had made at the police
station which recorded the conversation which you had had at
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. We never had a conversation at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale].

Q. Well, I suggest to you that you did have a conversation at

[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. We did not have conversations at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale].

HIS HONOUR: Mr Crown, there is obviously an issue between you as to

what a conversation is. He has accepted that he answered some
questions.

Listen to the judge

4.9 It is very important for a cross-examiner to listen carefully to any
intervention by the trial judge, as occurs here. The judge is pointing
out an apparent confusion that can easily be clarified — Tedeschi’s
next question immediately addresses the matter and clarifies any
confusion.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. Do you accept that you answered some of

the questions put to you by Sgt Leach?
A. Every question he asked me, I answered.

Q. That’s what I mean by a conversation?

A. My idea of a conversation is like me and you talking.

Q. You told us that any question he put to you, you answered, is that
right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did he tell you that he had a search warrant to search your

premises?
A. In the interview?

Q. No. I’m asking you questions about [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]
now. Is that quite clear? I am asking you questions about what you
said to Sgt Leach and what he said to you at [XXXXXXXX] Street
[Eagle Vale], right?
A. Righteo.

Q. Did he say to you that he had a search warrant to search your

premises?
A. Yes.

Q. And did he say to you, ‘we’ll wait here till your place has been
cleared by the other police’?
A. I can’t recall that. He could of said it.

[page 272]

Q. And did you say ‘Okay’?

A. I don’t know. All I remember — I remember he said ‘I’ve got a
search warrant’ and he shoved it in me face and that was it.

Q. Did he ask you ‘Are you Ivan Milat?’

A. He probably did, yes.

Q. And did you say ‘Yes’?

A. I would have if he asked me, yes.

Q. Did he then say ‘We are making enquiries in relation to an armed

robbery upon an English backpacker named Onions on Friday 25
January 1990. This day was Australia Day. I’ll be asking you
questions in relation to that incident’?
A. When did he — supposed to say that?

Q. This is going back to [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale], on the front

 lawn?
A. No, all he did — he shoved that bit of paper in me face and said
they were searching my place.

Q. At any time did he say to you words to that effect?

A. No.

Q. At [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale], inside or outside, did he tell

you that the police were making enquiries about an armed robbery
on an English backpacker?
A. Oh, he mentioned it some time during the morning.

Q. No. At [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]. I’m only asking you about
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. Yes, he probably did mention it there. That’s what I’m talking
about.

Q. And did he say at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] that they were
investigating an armed robbery on an English backpacker named
Onions on Friday 25 January 1990, which was Australia Day?
A. Yes. He might not of said it how you said it, but he mentioned
something about a robbery.

Q. Did he then caution you that you didn’t have to say anything unless
you wanted to as what you said could be used in court?
A. Definitely not.

Q. You, however, did during the videoed interview exercise your right
not to answer questions, didn’t you?
A. No. They still put me in front of it.
Q. No. Is this the case, that they asked you if you were prepared to
answer questions in relation to the Onions incident during the first
interview and you exercised your legal right not to answer
questions?
A. That’s right.

[page 273]

Q. Had Det Sgt Leach told you about that right that you had prior to
the videoed interview at the police station?
A. No.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Crown, I am just looking to see, did I explain the

legal right of the accused to answer questions when this first came up?

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Yes, your Honour, but I am quite content for

your Honour to do it again.

The importance of directions of law being given at an

appropriate time
4.10 It is important that the legal direction from the judge as to the
accused’s right to silence should be given to the jury at an
appropriate time to ensure that the jury do not draw any adverse
inference against the accused for exercising the right to remain
silent. This direction was given again here and the prosecutor agreed
that it was appropriate for the judge to do so.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, members of the jury, I remind you of what I told you
earlier in the trial and I will read to you what I said so that I get it in the
same terms.
 Every person who is asked questions by the police has the fundamental right to refuse
to answer any question. That is a right which the law very jealously protects.

You remember that each time the sergeant has spoken to Mr Milat (and I am talking
there of the evidence of Det Sgt Leach) he has introduced what he is going to say by a
caution which says he does not have to answer any questions, that any answer which
he gives may be given in evidence.

That caution means exactly what it says. You do not have to answer any questions.
The law also says if somebody does exercise that right you must not seek to draw any
conclusion or inference from that conduct that he is guilty. He is merely exercising a
right which he, you and I and everybody in this court room has if you are interviewed
by the police.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. I suggest to you that Sgt Leach did caution

you?
A. The only time he cautioned me was on that last thing in front of that
video thing.

Q. I suggest that he cautioned you back at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle

Vale]?
A. He never did.

Q. Did he then say to you — going back to [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle

Vale] now — ‘I will also be asking you further questions in relation
to your knowledge of the deaths of seven backpackers whose
bodies were located in the Belanglo State Forest’?
A. No.

[page 274]

The importance of clarity in questions

4.11 The evidence has gone back and forth between the questioning at
Eagle Vale and the later video-recorded questioning at the police
 station. Such situations have the potential to create confusion unless
care is taken to be clear and precise about what is being asked. Here,
the question has been framed to make it clear that what is now being
asked about is the questioning at Eagle Vale. Simple cues such as that
used here are important for the witness and for the jury, so everyone
knows clearly what is being asked. Attention to simple details like
this should be second nature to the cross-examiner — it saves time
and avoids confusion.

Q. He did not tell you that?

A. No.

Q. Did he say anything like that back at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle

Vale]?
A. Not that I can remember, no.

Q. Did you know, back at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale], that they
were investigating the deaths of seven backpackers?
A. No, he just started out on that armed robbery.

Q. Well I suggest to you that he did?

A. He didn’t.

Q. Did you say to the police, back at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale],
‘I don’t know what you are talking about’?
A. About what?

Q. About the seven backpackers?

A. He never asked me about them.
Q. Did you then go inside and did Sgt Leach ask, ‘Which is your
room?’
A. That’s right.

Q. And you showed him your room?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you went to the other rooms?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did Sgt Leach then say to you, ‘Have you ever been known by the
name of Bill’?
A. He come out later and asked me that, yes.

Q. And what was your reply to that?

A. I never — I don’t know what I said. I would have said ‘Yes’, I
suppose.

[page 275]

Q. So he asked you, ‘Have you ever been known by the name Bill?’
and you answered ‘Yes’?
A. If he asked me, yes.

Q. See, I suggest to you that your answer to that question was ‘No’?
A. You’re wrong.

Q. Did Det Sgt Leach then show you a postcard addressed to Ivan
Milat from Jock Pittaway which says ‘Dear Bill’ on it?
A. That’s right.

Confronting the witness with evidence in an exhibit and

timing this well; rapid identification of a significant
concession and fashioning an effective response
4.12 The prosecution’s evidence included a postcard that the police had
located at Eagle Vale, from a man named Jock Pittaway to Ivan
Milat, that commenced ‘Dear Bill’ (Bill was the name that Onions
said was used by his offender). In this passage of questions, the
witness has denied telling Det Sgt Leach that he did not use the name
Bill. But when Tedeschi raises the postcard, the witness agrees that
he had used the word ‘mistake’ in relation to the name Bill on the
postcard. Whether it was intended or not, this was an important
concession by the witness — it supports the police version of what
was said, and also the Crown’s proposition that the witness was not
being candid with police. When this kind of concession falls from
the witness it is important for the cross-examiner to realise its
significance. Tedeschi immediately appreciated its significance, and
the absurdity of the witness’s position, and his lack of credibility, is
further exposed by the skillful line of questioning rapidly fashioned
by the cross-examiner here.

Q. When he showed you that postcard did you say ‘It must be a
mistake’?
A. I remember saying the word ‘mistake’, yes.

Q. And in relation to the name on the card?

A. Yeah, on that matter, yes.

Q. Of course, when you first got to know Jock Pittaway he knew you
 by the name Bill, didn’t he?
A. No.

Q. Where did you first get to meet Jock Pittaway?

A. On the Main Roads.

Q. Did Jock Pittaway call you Bill?

A. He — when we were at Boral he did, yes.

Q. And in that card he calls you Bill, doesn’t he?

A. That’s right.

[page 276]

Q. So it was not a mistake, was it?

A. Yes. I said it was a mistake.

Q. Why did you tell Sgt Leach that it was a mistake?

A. Well I thought he made a mistake. Why did he call me Bill, he
addressed it to ‘Ivan’ and then has got ‘Bill’ inside it.

Q. He used to call you Bill when you were at Boral, didn’t he?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that Mr Pittaway just made a mistake by calling you

Bill?
A. That’s what I think. I was always going to ask him, that’s why I
kept the card.
Probing an absurd position taken by the witness
4.13 The witness has essentially said that Pittaway, who knew him by the
nickname of Bill, had made a mistake when he called him Bill in the
postcard. This is an absurd proposition, and by obtaining from the
witness here an explanation as to why it was a ‘mistake’, the
absurdity is clearly exposed, and so is the witness’s lack of credibility
on the issue. This, in turn, undermines the witness’s previous
assertions about the course of the questioning at Eagle Vale. This has
been achieved by the skillful confrontation with the exhibited
postcard, and by the careful timing of its use.

Q. Then Det Leach pointed out some New Zealand money to you on
your bed and asked you where you got it from?
A. He did show it to me on me bed.

Q. And then he told you that he was going to make a thorough search
of the premises?
A. Yes.

Q. And he asked you ‘Who else lives in this home — in this house’?
A. Yes.

Q. And you said, ‘Just Shirley, my sister, it’s her home, it’s her house’?
A. I would have, she lived there, yes.

Q. And Det Leach said to you, ‘Have you got any firearms in this
home — house’?
A. He asked me if I had any guns in the house, yes.
Q. And you said, ‘No’?
A. That’s right.

Q. And then he asked you, ‘Do you own any firearms?’

A. No.

[page 277]

Re-creating the context/state of affairs, in order to explore

the witness’s credibility
4.14 On the first day of the cross-examination the witness had told the
court that he moved his guns to Walter’s alcove for various reasons,
one of which was that he knew the police had been making inquiries
at his workplace about his guns. The cross-examiner knows this, and
when the witness here refuses to agree that Det Sgt Leach asked him,
‘Do you own any firearms’, Tedeschi’s following questions remind
the witness of this previous evidence (and also of the fact that he had
buried a pistol in the back yard). They also establish the context/state
of affairs at the time of the questioning at Eagle Vale, to demonstrate
that it would be highly likely that the police would have asked Milat
that very question he denies was asked. A few questions later, the
witness is prepared to agree that Det Sgt Leach had asked him if he
‘had any firearms in the house’. Even if the witness was seeking to
make a distinction between ‘ownership’ as opposed to ‘possession’ of
guns (which the cross-examiner picks up on), his reluctance to be
more forthcoming in response to these questions again damages his
credibility generally and particularly here in relation to his version of
the questions he had been asked by police at Eagle Vale. Later, it
becomes clear that Milat is maintaining that the reason he did not
 tell police about the pistol buried in the yard is that he asserts that he
was only asked if he had any guns ‘in the house’.

Q. Did he ask you if you owned any firearms?

A. No, I’m pretty sure he never asked me that.

Q. Pretty sure. Do you think that he might have?

A. I don’t believe so.

Q. They were searching your home for firearms, weren’t they?

A. They were searching the place, they were telling me nothing.

Q. You knew they were looking for firearms?

A. They never said nothing. They just searched the house. I’m on the
floor kneeling down in the family room and they are all marching
around the place.

Q. Your workmates had told you the police were making enquiries
about firearms?
A. That’s right.

Q. And you had gone to the trouble of burying a firearm in your back
garden, hadn’t you?
A. Yes.

Q. You had also gone to the trouble of moving all of your firearms
from your place to the alcove, right?
A. That’s right.
 [page 278]

Q. Surely you thought that the police were looking amongst other
things for firearms?
A. He talked about an armed robbery. I didn’t know what he was
looking for.

Q. Did you think the police were looking amongst other things for
firearms?
A. They were looking for everything. They never told me.

Q. Including firearms?
A. We never had much conversation. He told me nothing.

Q. He asked you if you had any firearms in the house?

A. Correct.

Q. And you said ‘No’?

A. That’s right.

Q. Then he asked you did you own any firearms?

A. He never asked me that.

Q. Would not that be a logical question for a police officer to ask a

suspect if looking for firearms in a house, whether he owns any
firearms?
A. I would not know what they would ask.

Q. See, you lied to him about having any firearms in the house?
A. I had no firearms in the house.

Closing the gates

4.15 What follows here is a good example of the difficulties in ‘closing the
gates’ and also of repairing the situation by following one’s instinct.
Tedeschi has established from the witness that he told Det Sgt Leach
that he had no firearms in the house. The witness has also given
evidence that he had a pistol buried in the back yard at the time the
police carried out their search. The gates appeared to be closed so as
to warrant the conclusion that the witness was being less than candid
to Det Sgt Leach. But when Tedeschi puts this to the witness, Milat
makes the distinction that the pistol was ‘in the yard’ and not ‘in the
house’ as if a literal interpretation of Leach’s question warranted a
literal answer. It was a good recovery by the cross-examiner to put to
Milat that he was being evasive with Det Sgt Leach — a proposition
that was entirely open on the evidence just given by the witness. The
witness’s literal approach to the issue appeared to demonstrate a
serious lack of candor. Instinctively sensing the apparent
insouciance in Milat’s demeanor at this point, Tedeschi decided to
go one step further and ask him whether he would have told Det Sgt
Leach about the buried pistol if he had been asked ‘whether he had
firearms buried in the back garden?’. The witness’s answer, ‘Probably
not, no’, must have further damaged the witness’s credibility, and
this whole exchange probably did more damage to the witness’s
overall credibility than if he had simply admitted not being candid to
Det Sgt Leach.

[page 279]
Q. You had them buried in the back garden?
A. In the back garden.

Q. You didn’t tell the police that?

A. That’s right.

Q. You were lying to Sgt Leach, weren’t you?

A. It wasn’t in the house.

Q. You knew what he meant, didn’t you. You were deliberately --

A. He asked — he said any firearms in the house. That’s what he
meant.

Q. You were deliberately being evasive with him, weren’t you?

A. I don’t know what you mean by ‘being evasive’.

Q. Trying to avoid the police discovering your pistol that was buried
in the back garden?
A. They never asked me about it.

Q. You were being evasive, weren’t you?

A. No.

Q. You know what that means?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you being evasive when you said that you had no firearms
in your home, your house?
A. No. He asked me did I have any firearms in the house and that
 was it. I said ‘No’.

Q. But you didn’t tell him about the firearms in your back garden, did
you?
A. That’s right.

Q. You were trying to protect yourself?

A. I wouldn’t have told him where it was, yes, you’re right there.

Q. Indeed, if he had said to you ‘Do you have any firearms buried in
the back garden?’, would you have told him?
A. Probably not, no

Q. Probably not or definitely not?

A. If — well, if he asked me I would have thought he must know
something.

Q. If Det Leach had asked you ‘Do you own any firearms?’ what
would you have said?
A. I would have said ‘Yes’.

Q. Well, I suggest to you that he did ask you and you said ‘No’?
A. He never asked me.

[page 280]

Q. Did he say to you ‘I have been told you own hand guns and rifles’?
A. No.
Q. And did you say ‘I don’t own any at all. Whoever told you that
should come and give them to you’?
A. No.

Q. I suggest to you that conversation did take place?

A. It didn’t.

Q. Did Sgt Leach then say, ‘There were bullets found in your room.
What were they for?’
A. I remember he took me into the room, actually, and he grabbed
one and shoved it in me face.

Q. Did he ask you what the bullets were for?

A. Then he asked me — I said I used to go shooting with my brothers.
I told him I go shooting.

Q. This is your explanation?

A. Yes.

Q. And he asked you ‘Which brother?’

A. Yes.

Q. And you said ‘Alex’ and that he had gone to Queensland?

A. That’s right.

Q. So you didn’t tell him that a lot of those bullets were for your own
firearms, did you?
A. No, he never asked me.

Q. He asked you what the bullets were for, didn’t he?

A. Yes, for shooting, and I told him that.

Q. But you didn’t mention that they were for shooting with any
firearms of yours?
A. No, well — I just told him I go shooting.

Q. I suggest to you that after that he told you a bit about the Onions
matter, that Mr Onions had been picked up at Casula by a person
who called himself Bill and had been driven just north of the
Belanglo State Forest on the Hume Highway where the driver
stopped the vehicle, pointed a hand gun at Mr Onions and told
him to tie his hands with rope — sorry — told him to tie his hands
with rope and produced some rope from under the seat and the
victim ran — there was a struggle, a struggle ensued and Mr
Onions flagged down a motorist and some other things. Did he tell
you all of that?
A. Something like that, yes

Q. And did you say ‘I understand what you’re saying. I had nothing to
do with it’?
A. That’d be about right, yes.

[page 281]

Q. Did he then tell you that Mr On ions had identified you as being
responsible for committing the offence?
A. Yeah, he might have, yes.

Q. And did you say ‘Yes, but it wasn’t me’?

A. I most probably did.
Q. And did he then tell you that they were investigating the deaths of
seven backpackers who went missing between Christmas 1989
and April 1992; their bodies were located in the Belanglo State
Forest and asked you what you could tell him about that?
A. I can’t recall that, no.

Q. And did you say ‘Nothing’?

A. He probably asked me nothing. That’s why.

Q. I suggest to you that he did say that and your reply was ‘Nothing’?
A. Nothing?

Q. Yes.
A. Only because he asked me nothing. Any question he asked me, I’d
answer it.

Q. Then did he ask you ‘Have you ever been to the Belanglo State
Forest?’
A. I — he might have asked me that later on.

Q. At [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] I’m talking about, and did you
say, ‘I know where it is. I’ve driven up a dirt track that goes past
it’?
A. ‘I’ve driven up the dirt road that went past it’.

Q. Is that what you said to Det Leach?

A. Yes, he might have asked me — I remember that question now.

Q. Did Det Leach ask you, ‘When was that?’

A. That’s right.
Q. And you said ‘A long time ago’ and he said, ‘How long ago?’ and
you said, ‘In the mid-80s’?
A. Something like that. 87, I thought I said.

Q. You, of course, had been to the Bowral Pistol Club since the mid-
1980s, hadn’t you?
A. 87 I first went there.

Q. You first went there in 1987?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the last time that you went to the Bowral Pistol Club?
A. 87.

[page 282]

Q. You have only been there --

A. Twice.

Q. -- twice in the one year?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did he then ask you ‘Do you own a Ruger 10/22?’

A. No.

Q. I suggest to you he did?

A. He didn’t.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. I’m pretty sure, yes.

Q. And did you say ‘I’ve told you before I don’t own any weapons’?
A. No.

Q. Are you sure?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he then ask you, ‘Have you ever had in your possession a
Ruger 10/22’?
A. No, I don’t remember him asking me that.

Q. And did you say ‘No’?

A. I would have said ‘No’.

Q. And did Det Leach ask you, ‘whose firearms do you use’?
A. No I can’t — no I don’t — he never asked me that either.

Q. And did you say ‘I borrow my brother Alex’s’?

A. No.

Q. Did Det Leach then say to you, ‘What motor vehicles have you
owned over the last six years?’
A. He did ask me about a motor vehicle, yes.

Q. Over the last six years?

A. I don’t know whether he said ‘six years’.

Q. But he was asking you what motor vehicles you owned?

A. I think he asked me what motor vehicle — who owned that one in
the garage.

Q. Did he ask you ‘What motor vehicles have you owned over the last
six years?’
A. No.

Q. Did he ask you what motor vehicles you have owned?

A. Yes.

[page 283]

Q. And what did you say?

A. ‘The one in the garage’.

Q. Did he ask you what motor vehicles you had owned in the past?
A. No.

Q. I suggest to you he said, ‘What motor vehicles have you owned

over the last six years?’
A. He didn’t.

Q. And you said ‘None’?

A. I didn’t say that.

Q. That would have been a lie, wouldn’t it?

A. ‘I’ve got that motor vehicle out in the garage.’ He asked me about
that.
Q. I suggest to you that Sgt Leach asked you what motor vehicles you
have owned over the last six years and you said ‘None’?
A. Why would I say that?

Q. I suggest to you that you lied to him, Mr Milat?

A. He’s lying if he said that.

Q. Did he ask you that question?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell him ‘None’?

A. He never asked me that question.

Q. Did he ask you who owned the Jackeroo?

A. Yes.

Q. Just answer this question yes or no. Did you lie to him?
A. No.

Q. Now, you were called to the garage and you were shown a white
bag with the Ruger parts in it?
A. Yes.

Q. Det Leach asked you what it was?

A. No. He just asked me ‘What is it?’ or something like that.

Q. ‘What’s this?’
A. Something like that.
Q. Did you have a look, when he asked you ‘What’s this?’
A. Well, the bloke that was holding it, opened it up a bit.

[page 284]

Q. And did you have a look?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was exhibit EV, the Ruger parts from the wall cavity?
A. Various gun things in it, yes.

Q. Did you say ‘Looks like something out of a gun’?

A. Something like that, yes.

Q. And did Det Leach say, ‘Have you seen it before?’

A. Yes, I think he said that.

Q. And did you say, ‘No’?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did he say, ‘It was located in the ceiling. Have you got any idea
how it got there?’
A. He did ask me that, yes.

Q. And you said ‘None’?

A. That’s right.

Q. Then he said to you, ‘Who has been in the ceiling?’

A. And I said something about him and the builders, something like
that.

Q. You said ‘You blokes and the builders’?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you tell the court that there were some other people who
had been up in your roof space doing some work and that was
one of the reasons why you were concerned about the security of
your guns?
A. Yes. They were the blokes — the builders.

Q. They were builders, were they?

A. They were the ones that installed the roller door.

Q. And they were builders, were they? I see.

A. When we originally got it on they were the same people. I call
them the builders, yes.

Q. Then he showed you a tent?

A. No.

Q. And asked you if you had seen it before?

A. Never showed me a tent.

Q. Never showed you a tent?

A. No.

[page 285]
Q. Never showed you a Salewa tent that was found in your garage?
A. No.

Q. I suggest that he did?

A. He didn’t.

Q. I suggest he asked you, ‘Have you ever seen it before?’

A. He asked me about some blue tent. I remember him saying that.

Q. That was the tent in the garage. He showed you a blue tent from
the garage?
A. No

Q. He showed you a blue tent?

A. He never showed me any tents.

Q. Didn’t you just tell us that he showed you a blue tent?

A. He asked.

Q. He asked about a blue tent? I suggest that he showed you a blue

tent?
A. He asked me about a blue tent.

Q. Did he ask you if you had seen it before?

A. No, he asked me something, ‘Whose is it’ or something like that.

Q. And what did you say?

A. I said ‘No, I’ve never seen it before. I’ve never seen a blue tent in
there’.
Q. Did he show you a green Preston coat from the Jackeroo?
A. Yes.

Q. Did he ask you ‘Who owns this coat?’

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said it was mine.

Q. Did you say ‘I suppose it’s me’?

A. No, I would have said ‘It’s mine’ because it is mine.

Q. Did you start off by saying ‘I suppose it’s me’?

A. No.

Q. Did he ask about the bullets in it?

A. Yes.

Q. At the end of the conversation did he say to you ‘Before we go,

are you sure you haven’t’ got any firearms located in these
premises?’
A. We didn’t have a conversation.

[page 286]

Q. I withdraw the word ‘conversation’. Did he say to you ‘Before we

go are you sure you have got no firearms located in these
premises?’
A. No, he didn’t say that to me at all.
Q. And I suggest to you your answer was, ‘I told you I haven’t got
any’?
A. He never said that to me at all.

Q. I suggest to you the conversation I have related to you did take

place as I have related it to you and as Det Sgt Leach gave in
evidence?
A. Nothing like that at all.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Crown, that Winchester 30/30 is not in evidence, is

it?

CROWN PROSECUTOR: No it isn’t.

MFI #120 WINCHESTER 30/30.4

[Legal discussion in absence of the jury.]

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Could I have the aerial photograph of the

Belanglo State Forest, exhibit AF.

HIS HONOUR: I hope both of you will continue to refer to exhibit

numbers. That evidence in chief is a nightmare, trying to trace exhibit
numbers.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q. (Approached.) Mr Milat, I show you an

aerial photograph of the Belanglo State Forest area. You told the court
that in 1987 on two occasions you went to the Bowral Pistol Club?5
A. That’s right.

Q. This is the Hume Highway here. This is the Bungendore road that
goes past the forest. This is the road that goes up to the pistol club
and is the pistol club this area here that I am marking, where there
are two clearings?
A. I couldn’t tell you looking at it like this. I’ve never — I’ve never
overflow — overflew the forest.

Q. If this is the Bowral Pistol Club where those two clearings are, then
do you agree that this road here that goes past the forest and then
goes up to those clearings is the dirt road that goes to the pistol
club?
A. It’s a dirt road once we come off the highway. We just drove past
— I remember there was the forest on me right. There was some
sort of building, you know, the Forestry people’s buildings on the
left and we just kept going and I think there were houses, or one
house at least, or maybe two — and we just sort of kept going till
we come in there. If that’s where it is, well, that’s where it is.

[page 287]

Q. So do you agree that in 1987 at least you went that close to the
Belanglo State Forest?
A. I went — I went to the pistol club.

Establishing the witness’s familiarity with place

4.16 These following questions establish the witness’s familiarity with the
Belanglo State Forest and his presence in the Hume Highway and
Campbelltown region for his work during the relevant periods.

Q. And do you agree, if that is the pistol club there, that you would
have gone as close as that to the Belanglo State Forest?
A. We go past the Belanglo State Forest.
Q. Now you have done some work on the F5 freeway?
A. Yes.

Q. As part of your duties with the RTA?

A. That’s right.

Q. Over what period of time were you working on the F5 freeway?

A. Probably from 76 to — right up to 94.

Q. From 76 to 94, is that right? 76 or 86?

A. 76.

Q. 76 to 94?
A. Ever since we started with the DMR we would have done bits and
pieces around the place.

Q. How often did you work on the F5 freeway during that period?
A. Helped build it.

Q. What was your contribution?

A. I mainly did spray sealant.

Q. I’m sorry?
A. The primary sealant.

Q. Was there a works office associated with the F5?

A. At Campbelltown.

Q. At Campbelltown was it?

A. Yes.

Q. The F5 starts where — which was the first part of the F5 to be built?
A. From the — what I was working on?

[page 288]

Q. Yes.
A. From sort of Kenny’s Hill right up past Bargo, up to whatever —
whatever they — towards Mittagong.

Q. The extension of the F5 to create the part that goes past Casula,
what is that part called?
A. I’ve never worked on that.

Q. Do you know the part I mean?

A. That’s the new road which has been opened up since I’ve been in
gaol, since my arrest.

Q. Did you work on that road at all?

A. On the new part that the contractors built?

Q. The F5?
A. Not on that new part. We might have — through Readymix, we
might have done little bits and pieces associated with it but I didn’t
really work on it, no.

Q. Is that known as the M5?

A. Since the contractors took over I think they call their section the
 M5.

Q. And the M5 goes on to the F5, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You would have done some work on the F5 during that period that
you told us about?
A. Very good chance of it, yes.

Q. The works office was at Campbelltown?

A. Their main works office would have been in Campbelltown, yes.

Q. Did you do more work on that road than you did on any other
road?
A. No, I wouldn’t say that. We basically went all over the State.

Q. Whereabouts did the F5 start at the Sydney end?

A. Oh well, I’m not sure how far this new M5 --

Q. The F5, not the M5?

A. The F5 will start where the M5 finishes, I suppose.

Q. Is that near Liverpool?

A. I’m not real sure because this has all happened now since I’ve
been arrested.

Q. In 1990 were you working on the F5?

A. Oh, I could of.

Q. Now what I would like to do is to ask you if any of these

 descriptions fit you?
A. Okey doke.

[page 289]

Q. Obviously I am taking these descriptions from the evidence of Mr

Onions. Do you understand that?
A. Right.

Putting identification features to the witness

4.17 The cross-examiner is indicating, fairly, that he is about to put to the
witness the various details of description that Onions gave in
relation to ‘Bill’. Note the care with which this important evidence is
put to the witness, and how skillfully the cross-examiner teases out
the strength of the evidence by directly asking the witness to
consider each aspect of the description given by Onions. At the same
time this serves as a reminder to the jury of the description given by
Onions, and as each item is carefully dealt with in turn, the jury are
assisted to make a direct comparison with the witness and the
witness’s answers, as well as with the photograph of Milat taken in
January 1990.6 Consider how much more effective it is to put these
particulars of description through the witness himself rather than
simply relying on the other evidence in the Crown case. The cross-
examiner knows from the other evidence in the case that the
description fits well, and so could be confident that this approach
would be effective.

Q. Now in 1990 you were in your forties?

A. 45.
Q. In January 1990 did you have a Merv Hughes moustache with
grey on the bottom?
A. Never had a Merv Hughes moustache.

Q. Would you have a look at MFI 118. That is the photograph of you
in January1990. (MFI 118 shown to witness.) Would you agree
that looks like a Merv Hughes moustache?
A. No.

Q. Is it anything like a Merv Hughes moustache?

A. No.

Q. In what way is it different from a Merv Hughes moustache?

A. I watch the cricket and my idea of a Merv Hughes moustache — it
sort of sweeps back a bit.

Q. So yours does not sweep back a bit?

A. No.

Q. Did you have side levers with grey flecks?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have an Australian accent?

A. Yes.

[page 290]

Q. Did you have dark hair?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you have dark skin?
A. Well --

Q. A dark complexion for a Caucasian, an olive complexion?

A. I would of regarded myself as pretty ordinary.

Q. Would you have a look at this photograph again, MFI 118.

(shown.) Do you agree you appear to have an olive complexion,
probably from being out in the sun a lot for your work?
A. If you call it olive. I just call it how I look ordinary.

Effective use of photographs

4.18 The witness’s previous answer about his complexion being ‘pretty
ordinary’ was challenged by showing the photograph taken in
January 1990, in which Milat’s complexion appears to be quite olive
or suntanned.

Q. And do you agree that you sometimes squint your eyes?

A. I’m not sure how I squint my eyes. Am I squinting them now?

Q. You are not outside now. Do you agree that when you are outside
you sometimes squint your eyes?
A. I’m not sure what a squint of my eye means, like.

Q. Has anyone ever told you that sometimes you hold your mouth in
what looks like a grin?
A. No.

Q. So that your top teeth can be seen?

A. Every time I open me mouth you can see my top teeth.

Q. Has anybody ever told you that sometimes it looks as though you
might be grinning?
A. No.

Q. Do you think yourself that some people might take that as being a
grin?
A. I wouldn’t have a clue how they take it.

Q. Would you agree that your height is pretty close to the same as Mr
Onions’ height?
A. I’m not sure what his height is.

Q. He is 5 foot 6?
A. I’m 57 and 3/8ths.

Q. So it’s not that different?

A. No.

[page 291]

Q. And do you agree that you, when you are not working, you are
often going round with t-shirts and shorts?
A. Yes, I agree with that.

Q. In 1990 were you right handed?

A. Still am.
Q. In 1990 were you strong?
A. Oh, strong as a 45-year old bloke, yes.

Q. Physically strong. As at January 1990 you had used the name Bill?
A. Yes.

Q. You were working on the roads?

A. Not working on the road, no.

Q. In January 1990 you worked on the roads?

A. Yes.

Q. And as at January 1990 were you divorced?

A. Yes.

Q. Your family was from Yugoslavia?

A. Me father is.

Q. Do you agree that all those features fit you, that I have mentioned?
A. Yes.

Q. Now as far as your car was concerned you had a 4-wheel drive?
A. That’s right.

Q. As at January 1990, it was a 2-door?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was a Nissan or Toyota?

A. A Nissan.
Q. It was silver or white?
A. It was silver and white.

Q. And it had bull-bars?

A. Yes.

Q. As at January 1990?
A. Yes.

Q. It had a running board?

A. Yes.

[page 292]

Q. It had lambswool seat covers?

A. Yes.

Q. You quite proudly kept it quite clean?

A. Yes.

Q. You were fairly keen to keep it well kept?

A. Yes.

Q. And you used to keep cassettes between the two front seats?
A. Yes.

Q. And it had a red or crimson stripe along the side?

A. Blue was the predominant colour.
Q. Do you agree that all of those features match your car?
A. Yes.

Q. Now Mr Milat, do you know of any other person in this world who
has all of those features that I have just mentioned, including the
features of their car?
A. Do I know anybody else with a car like mine?

Q. Do you know any other person in this whole world who has those
features about himself and his car?
A. No.

A rhetorical question
4.19 This is an excellent question, almost approaching a submission,
emphasising the extent of detail of the description given and the
rareness of all these features occurring together, such that the
witness has little choice but to agree with the proposition put.

Q. Now, you told the court that you acquired a spare tyre holder on
the back of your car in December 1990?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you have another tyre holder on your car prior to that one?
A. Slung underneath the bottom.

Q. Yes, and how — could you see it from the rear?

A. If you laid down on the ground you could.
 [page 293]

Knowing when not to challenge the evidence

4.20 Here Tedeschi fairly but succinctly explores the evidence Milat had
given in his evidence-in-chief about not having had chrome wheels
on his car or a spare tyre and cover at the back of his Nissan as of
January 1990. The Crown was not in a position to dispute the
evidence about this, but it was not sufficiently critical to warrant any
more persistent probing than is done by the cross-examiner here.

Q. If you were standing behind the car could you see it?
A. No.

Q. Did you have any other rear tyre holder on your car behind the car
prior to the one you had installed in December 1990?
A. No.

Q. Did you have chrome wheels on your car in January 1990?

A. No.

Q. Did you have a tyre cover on your tyre in January 1990?

A. No.

Q. Now, moving to another area, you have been asked a number of

questions both in examination in chief and in cross-examination
about two items that were found in the garage at Guildford,
namely the Next shirt, which Mr Onions has identified, and a
yellow grandfather t-shirt, which the Crown says belonged to
Simone Schmidl. You have heard evidence about those two items?
A. Yes.

Maintaining pace and momentum

4.21 The cross-examination is now nearing completion. Tedeschi has a
number of relatively short topics of evidence that he wishes to deal
with that all strengthen the prosecution case, and he deals with these
in rapid succession, maintaining pace and ensuring that each matter
dealt with resonates consistently, and accumulates, with the
compelling evidence already given. The topics dealt with include
Onions’s Next brand shirt and Schmidl’s grandfather shirt found in
the garage at Guildford; whether the witness had been to Galston
Gorge (where James Gibson’s backpack and camera had been
found); Milat’s habit of engraving things with various words and
with his name; Caroline Clarke’s camera; and the presence of a map
including Belanglo State Forest in the hall cupboard at Eagle Vale.

Q. Is this the case, that when you lived at Guildford you used to park
your car in that garage?
A. That’s right.

[page 294]

Q. No one else used to park their car in that garage whilst you were
living there?
A. If they wanted to park their car in there, yes they can park their car
in there.

Q. Is this the case, you had priority use of that garage so far as
parking your car was concerned?
A. Yes.

Q. When you parked your car in the garage the door would be
closed?
A. At the end of the day, yes, I closed the doors.

Q. And people would be able to tell whether you were home or not
by whether the door was open or closed?
A. Not necessarily so.

Q. Do you know how the Next Shirt and the yellow grandfather t-shirt
came to be in the garage?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Wasn’t by you?
A. No, wasn’t by me.

Q. You have told the court that a number of items both at your home
at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] and in amongst your property in
the alcove has been planted there by someone else. You have told
the court that. Do you think that someone was trying to incriminate
you?
A. Most definitely.

Q. Do you think that someone was trying to incriminate you by

placing the Next shirt and the yellow grandfather t-shirt in the
garage?
A. I would not have no idea.

Q. If someone was trying to incriminate you they did a rather poor job
 by putting the Next shirt and the yellow grandfather t-shirt in the
garage, didn’t they?
A. I wouldn’t have no idea.

Q. Have you ever been down the Galston Gorge road?

A. No.

Q. Never ever?
A. Never ever.

Q. You know where the Galston Gorge road is?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been through that road, not when you were
working, just for recreational reasons?
A. No.

[page 295]

Q. I suggest to you that you were on the Galston Gorge road on the
last day or so of 1989 and that you deposited Mr Gibson’s pack
and camera on the side of the road?
A. You’re wrong.

Q. (Counsel approached with exhibit HU.) I show you exhibit HU, is

that your firearm?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that known as a Hornet?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Is that a gun that you kept in the grey locker at Guildford?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see on this firearm there are a number of items that have
been engraved on it?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see someone has put, engraved an arrow pointing towards

the end of the barrel?
A. Yeah.

Q. And the words ‘Noise end’?

A. That’s right.

Q. Did you engrave that?

A. I’m pretty sure I did, yes.

Q. Why did you engrave that on the rifle?

A. No particular reason.

Q. Any reason at all that you can think of?

A. No.

Q. Was it a joke?
A. Could probably say that.

Q. Do you think it would improve the resale value?

A. I never planned on selling it.

Q. You see the word ‘Ivan’ near the sights?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that your engraving?

A. I did that, yes.

Q. There is also here underneath the telescopic sights ‘1901M’?

A. Yes.

[page 296]

Q. You engraved that?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the significance of that number?

A. I believe it’s roughly the model of the gun.

Q. And incidentally, the engraving of the word ‘Ivan’ is done in

capital letters?
A. Well, capital letters or whatever you want to call them, yes.

Q. Would you like to have a look? (Shown exhibit HU.) Do you agree
it is in capital letters?
A. Yes.

Q. In your writing?
A. Yeah, I did it.
Q. That is your style of writing the word ‘Ivan’?
A. Well yes.

Q. Mr Milat, you told us yesterday that you have used this camera
(referring to Olympus Trip S)?
A. That’s right.

Q. To take photographs?
A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions?

A. I couldn’t really tell you.

Q. More than one occasion?

A. Oh, I’m sure it is.

Q. And have you processed the films that you took with that camera?
A. I imagine, yes.

Q. Would you be able to tell us any photographs that you took with
that camera?
A. Oh, no.

Q. Can you tell us where you were when you used it on any occasion?
A. There was a couple of cameras at our place --

Probing based on the strength of the evidence in the case

4.22 This is an excellent series of probing questions — surely anyone
would recall at least one photograph they had taken with a camera
 that they used. Tedeschi here has made an educated guess that the
witness would be reluctant to admit

[page 297]

recollecting photographs he had taken with this camera, because the

witness appeared keen to distance himself from anything to do with
the Olympus camera that the prosecution asserted had belonged to
Caroline Clarke. Also, working on the assumption that this was
indeed Caroline Clarke’s camera (which the evidence very strongly
supported) it was reasonable for the cross-examiner to assume that
Milat may have known this, and so would not have made any
inquiries from his sister Shirley about where it had come from. The
witness’s vague and oblique answers confirmed the logic of this
reasoning. Outcomes of this kind, consistent with the cross-
examiner’s case theory, tend to confirm to a cross-examiner that
their case theory is correct, and can often open fresh avenues of
inquiry.

Q. No, I am just asking about that one. Can you identify any
photographs that you took or any location that you were at where
you took photographs with that camera?
A. No, I can’t really say that.

Q. You found out after your arrest that there was a very strong
suggestion that that camera belonged to Caroline Clarke?
A. I read in statements three people identified it.

Q. Well you have told us that when you first used this camera that it
was Shirley who gave it to you?
A. Yeah, I presumed it was Shirley’s, yes.

Q. You have also told us that Shirley has regularly been visiting you at
gaol?
A. Yes.

Q. What, every week?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed this camera with Shirley?

A. I don’t believe that I did — I don’t really know.

Q. You don’t know. Well, here is the camera you have found out that
probably belonged to one of the backpackers, one of the
murdered backpackers, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And it is found in your home, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was Shirley who first gave it to you?

A. She never give it to me.

Q. It was Shirley who gave it to you the first time you used it?
A. Yes.

[page 298]

Q. Well, have you ever — if you could just answer this yes or no —
 have you ever said to Shirley, ‘Where on earth did you get this
camera from?’ Just answer that yes or no?
A. No.

Q. Mr Milat, you have been charged with some very serious offences?
A. I know that.

Q. Here is an item which has been linked to one of the backpackers,

right, it was found — is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. It has been found in your home, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you tell us that it was Shirley, your sister, who gave it to you
the first time it was given to you, the first time you used it, right?
A. Yes.

Q. Why on earth didn’t you say to Shirley, ‘For heaven’s sake, who
did you get that camera from?’
A. Well, I probably might have asked her. I just can’t recall it. I never
made a big deal of it. Until you actually showed me the camera
the other day this is the closest I’ve seen it. If you asked me three
months ago to describe the camera I wouldn’t be able to describe
it to you.

The ‘what would a reasonable person do in the same

situation’ question
4.23 This can be a highly effective approach, as it is here. The cross-
 examiner must always follow through the logic of a proposition that
the witness’s evidence gives rise to, and ask himself or herself what
an honest and reasonable person’s response would be. If the
witness’s response is markedly different, this warrants further
exploration. There are a number of other examples of this technique
in this cross-examination.

Q. Did you ask Shirley where she got it from or not? You told us a few
minutes ago you did not ask her?
A. I don’t recall asking her, no.

Q. Didn’t you think that would be a very important thing for you to
find out the answer to?
A. I’ve been told not to discuss me case with anybody.

Q. Weren’t you interested to find out where it was that Shirley had got
this camera from?
A. Well no, not particularly.

[page 299]

Q. Well, you see, you say that all of these items had been planted in
your house?
A. I’m not saying this was planted at me house.

Q. You say a lot of items were planted in your house, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And here is a camera that has been linked to one of the

 backpackers. Weren’t you vitally interested to find out where it had
come from to try and find out where all these planted items had
come from?
A. I said I didn’t know this was the camera.

Q. But you knew at least by the committal proceedings that that

camera had been linked to one of the backpackers?
A. I knew a camera was linked to the backpackers and I suppose if
found in our house, yes.

Q. Did you ask Shirley which was the camera that you had used?
A. She couldn’t describe the camera to me. I don’t know which one
she give me. Until a couple of days ago this is the closest I’d seen
this camera.

Q. I suggest the reason why you never enquired of Shirley where she
got that camera from was, it was you who brought it to your
house?
A. I never did.

Q. I suggest to you that if you were really interested in how that

camera came to be in your house, you would have asked Shirley?
A. I might have did. I just can’t recall it. I’ve already said that to you.

Q. Just one further question about the camera, Mr Milat. You tell this
court that you assume that Shirley brought that camera into the
house, don’t you?
A. Yes.

Q. You assume that, is what you have told the court?

A. Yes.

Q. So is this the case, that Shirley Milat, your sister, and only Shirley
Milat, your sister, would be able to say whether or not that
assumption is correct?
A. I gather that.

Q. When is the last time that you have spoken to Shirley?

A. Last weekend.

Q. Now exhibit GG is a map which was found in the fourth bedroom

— I am sorry, in the hall cupboard at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale] (counsel approached with document.) It was not found with
this purple staining on it that is a ninhydrin which is designed to
bring up fingerprints. Do you agree that was in your house?
A. Could have been.

[page 300]

Q. Have you seen that map before?

A. Well, I’ve got lots of maps there, it could have been there.

Q. Do you agree that it shows very clearly the Belanglo State Forest?
A. Yes.

Q. And the road going into the Belanglo State Forest?

A. Yeah, I suppose it has got that there, yes.

Q. Mr Milat, exhibit Y is a statement by Snr Const Watson from the

 Traffic Camera Unit to say that on 15 January 1991 he set up this
camera detection device and that on 16 January 1991 your
Nissan, [registration number stated] was photographed by the red
light camera at 12.12am going through the intersection of Pennant
Hills Road and Carlingford Road.

Q. Would you have a look please at the photographs that were taken
by that red light camera on 16 January 1990 (shown.)7
A. Yes.

Q. That is your vehicle?

A. That’s right.

Q. Your Nissan?
A. Yes.

Q. And is this the case, that you had just been in Queensland?
A. That’s right, yes.

Q. Were you returning from Queensland?

A. That’s correct.

Q. When in Queensland you had seen your former sister-in-law,

Maureen Murray?
A. That’s right.

Q. And I think there were some other people that you had seen up in
Queensland?
A. Yeah, a few other people. I can list them.
Q. Was that photograph taken on your way home?
A. That’s right.

Q. Were you travelling in Pennant Hills Road or in Carlingford Road

or both?
A. No, just on Pennant Hills Road.

[page 301]

Q. How long had you been away?

A. I left on the 9th.

Q. You left on 9 January?

A. Yes.

Q. 1991?
A. That’s right.

Q. And you got back early on the morning of 16 January 1991?

A. That’s right.

Q. Had you done anything else apart from visiting people in

Queensland?
A. Like, I come straight back once I finished with them.

Q. I mean, had you been shooting at all?

A. No, no shooting up there, no.

Q. So, apart from travelling and visiting people, had you done
 anything else?
A. Oh, just went swimming and things like that.

Q. You hadn’t been shooting?

A. No.

Q. Now would you tell the court why did you have your curtains
closed on the car?
A. The curtains — that’s how they just stay closed.

Q. Why is that?
A. They won’t stay open. You pull them open and they slowly just
Rrrrr.

Q. Is this the case, that you used to keep a gun box in the back of the
car?
A. No, no gun box in the back of me car.

Q. See, I suggest to you the curtains were there to stop people seeing
the gun box?
A. No, you’re wrong.

Q. Incidentally, did you ever have a CB radio in your car?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you from time to time tune in to the truckies channel?

A. From time to time, yes.

Q. And from time to time did you hear messages on the truckies
channel about people wanting lifts, hitchhikers wanting lifts?
A. No, I can’t say I ever heard that.

Q. Never heard that?

A. Not that I can recall.

[page 302]

Q. Is that something that you would expect on that channel from time
to time?
A. I wouldn’t have expected it but I don’t know what really, you know,
they talk about.

Q. From time to time did you keep a pistol or revolver in that car?
A. When I go shooting with my black powder revolver.

Q. Was it your habit to keep a pistol or revolver in that car, regularly?

A. I wouldn’t call it regularly.

Q. I suggest to you that you had a revolver in that car on 25 January

1990?
A. No I didn’t.

Q. I would like to ask you some more questions about the period that
you have been in gaol. You have told the court that you had a 45
pistol hidden in a plastic box in your back garden?
A. That’s right.

Q. Did Shirley know about that before you arrest?

A. I wouldn’t think so, no.
Q. Did you tell her?
A. No.

Q. After your arrest, when you were in custody, did you have a
conversation with Shirley about the pistol?
A. Not so much Shirley. I think she was there. I think it was me
brother. It could have been Shirley. I’m not sure. They were both
there, I think.

Q. Which brother?
A. Wally, I believe.

Q. Did you ask Shirley to do something?

A. I asked them to get rid of it.

Q. You knew that that was possible evidence in this case?

A. I wouldn’t believe so.

Q. Well, you knew that the police were anxious to get their hands on
any firearms of yours at all, didn’t you?
A. Well, I imagine they would. I thought they had them all.

Q. You knew that they didn’t have them all. You knew that there was
this pistol buried in your back garden?
A. Well, I didn’t believe they were looking for a pistol. They never
asked me about a pistol.

Q. Mr Milat, you knew that the police were anxious to get every
firearms of yours that they could lay their hands on, didn’t you?
A. Oh, I’m sure they were.
 [page 303]

Q. They had searched your brothers’ homes and confiscated firearms,

right?
A. They searched all my brothers’ places.

Q. They took firearm parts and a hand gun from your place?
A. That’s what they say, yes.

Q. They took a lot of firearms from the alcove?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you went and arranged with your brother Walter and
your sister Shirley to dispose of the hand gun that was buried in
your back garden, didn’t you?
A. That’s right.

Q. You conspired with them to dispose of that hand gun?

A. I told them about it, yes.

Q. And you asked Shirley to dig it up?

A. Whether it was Shirley or Walter, I can’t be sure.

Q. They were both there?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you find out that it had been dug up?
A. Eventually, yes.
Q. Do you know who dug it up?
A. No.

Q. Were you told that Shirley had given it to Walter?

A. I heard it — in court, yes.

Q. Did you know that the gun had been disposed of before you heard
about it in court?
A. That’s all I was told. It was got rid of, yes.

Q. You were told it was got rid of?

A. Yes.

Q. Who told you that?

A. I believe it could have been Shirley.

Q. So did Shirley tell you that she had got rid of the pistol?
A. She just said ‘It’s taken care of’ and I just naturally assumed she
dumped it somewhere.

Q. She, of course, knew what you had been charged with?

A. Yes.

[page 304]

Q. And she participated in getting this firearm and disposing of it?

A. Well, I assume so.

Q. At your request?
A. I assume so, yes.

Q. And your brother Walter also participated by finding a buyer for

your gun?
A. Well, I don’t know about that, but that’s what he said.

Q. This was at a time when you had been charged with some very
serious offences?
A. Yes.

Q. That your brother and your sister — despite those very serious
offences — were prepared to assist you to get rid of this firearm
that was buried in your back garden?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. I have asked you a number of questions about the silencer that was
found in your garage?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you make up that silencer?

A. Just to have one to see if it works — make one up. I wanted one.

Q. Why did you want one?

A. Just to have one to see how they go.

Q. What possible use could you have for a silencer?

A. When we’re down the block, when we’re shooting near the river,
 there’s always other people, you know, within sort of hearing
distance.

Q. Why did you want handcuffs from Peter Murphy?8

A. I didn’t particularly want handcuffs from Peter Murphy.

Q. Did you ask him to get you a set?

A. He was mucking around there with me and I said that I wouldn’t
mind a set.

Q. Why would you not mind a set of handcuffs?

A. Well, it just seemed to be interesting. That’s about it.

[page 305]

Q. What could you use handcuffs for?

A. Same thing, same as he was doing, just mucking about.

Q. Muck about how?

A. We were at a party that night and --

Q. Which night?
A. I think it was their engagement night or something like that.

Q. He wasn’t going to get you a set of handcuffs that day, was he?
A. No. I just mentioned it to him. I just said I wouldn’t mind a set of
handcuffs. I didn’t particularly say ‘you’ve got to give me a set of
handcuffs’.
Q. You were interested in getting a set of handcuffs to tie people up?
A. No.

Q. What, to play with?

A. Yeah. I just said I wouldn’t mind a set. I didn’t really expect him to
give me a set.

Q. Mr Milat, did you ask Shirley or Walter to get rid of any other
weapons, guns or gun parts that were not found by the police?
A. I had no other hidden guns or gun parts.

Q. Have you asked anybody else, either in your family or otherwise,

to get rid of any other guns or gun parts not found by the police?
A. No, there were no other guns.

Q. You have told us that your girlfriend, Chalinder, is originally from

India?
A. Yes.

Q. In January 1990 what were your views about Asian immigration?9

A. I had no views on it.

Q. Do you know if Richard had any views about Asian immigration or

has any views about Asian immigration?
A. Well, I heard he has, yes.

Q. You heard that in evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. And you heard him say that he thinks that your views are the
 same?
A. I didn’t hear that.

Q. He gave evidence that he assumed that your views are the same as
his?
A. He might have said that but I don’t know what he would have said.

[page 306]

Q. Have you ever expressed any views against Asian immigration to

Australia?
A. I’ve got nothing against it.

Q. I know you say that now, but have you ever expressed or held such
a view?
A. No.

Q. I suggest to you that you told Mr On ions that you were against
Asian immigration?
A. I’m not against Asian immigration. I’ve never had no views about
it. I don’t care about it.

Q. Have you ever had a view about the British presence in Northern
Ireland?
A. No. I don’t care one way or the other about Ireland.

Q. Have you ever expressed a view about the British presence in

Northern Ireland?
A. No.
Q. I suggest to you that you expressed a view against the British
presence in Northern Ireland to Mr Onions?
A. Well I never did. I’ve got no view about England Northern Ireland
or England or whatever they’re doing over there.

Q. You were asked by Mr Martin some questions about your

whereabouts on Boxing Day 1991?
A. That’s right.

Q. Do you know where you were on the following day, the 27th?
A. Not real sure, no.

Testing an alibi
4.24 Tedeschi probes, in the following questions, the alleged alibi that
Milat put forward that he was at a family gathering at Guildford on
Boxing Day (26 December) 1991.

Q. Do you have any photographs of yourself on Boxing Day at

Guildford?
A. I — I can’t remember. I never took none myself.

Q. You told the court that all of your photographs were taken by the
police?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this the case, that your lawyers have got access whenever they
like to any of those photographs?
A. Yes, but the police had them first.
Q. Yes, but your lawyers have access to all those photographs, don’t
they?
A. Whatever the police want to show them.

[page 307]

Q. I suggest to you that your lawyers have access to all of the

photographs that were taken from your home?
A. I wish they did.

Q. Did you say that you don’t know of any photographs showing you
at Guildford on Boxing Day 1991?
A. There could have been some taken. I never posed for any.

Q. You are not aware of any, are you?

A. Of myself?

Q. Yes.
A. That’s right.

Q. Of yourself taken by anyone?

A. There could have been, you know, I’m just hanging round the
place there.

Q. Are you aware of any?

A. Of myself?

Q. Yourself?
A. Not that I can recall, no.
Q. Were both Richard and Walter at Guildford on Boxing Day 1991?
A. I can’t say I remember Richard being there.

Q. Was [Richard’s son] there?

A. Yes.

Q. [He] being Richard’s son?

A. That’s right.

Q. Was Elizabeth Smith there?

A. Yes.

Q. Being his de facto?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall if he was there, Richard?

A. No.

Q. You have heard evidence from Carolynne that he was there?

A. That who was there?

Q. You have heard the evidence of Carolynne Milat that Richard Milat
was at Guildford on that day?
A. I can’t recall hearing it, but yes.

[page 308]

Q. You don’t deny that he was there on that day?

A. I can’t say I seen him. That was about it.

Q. You have given evidence in relation to the Anschutz that you sold
the Anschutz to your brother Walter?
A. That’s right.

Q. I suggest to you that you didn’t sell the Anschutz to your brother
Walter?
A. Yes I did.

Q. Mr Milat, in relation to the evidence given by your brother Walter,

did you hear in evidence him say that he thinks that he has seen
you with a Ruger 10/22 a year or two or three before your arrest,
possibly at the block at Wombeyan?
A. I believe he said that, yes.

The force of witness numbers — demonstrating that the

evidence of the witness is at odds with the evidence of
numerous others
4.25 Tedeschi now asks several series of questions confronting the
witness with evidence given and/or statements in evidence made by
other witnesses. The cross-examiner accumulates the testimony of
others in this rolling series of questions, demonstrating that Milat is
in disagreement with the evidence of a great number of other
witnesses as to their particular evidence. This creates a powerful
momentum that makes a very clear point — that the witness is
perhaps simply not prepared to agree to anything these witnesses say
that might have a negative impact on his position. Tedeschi leaves
Onions’s identification evidence as the last in this series, and against
the background of Milat’s disagreement with the testimony of so
 many other witnesses, his assertion that Onions ‘is lying’ seems very
likely to be nothing other than an unwillingness to admit the truth.

Q. Now what do you say about that?

A. I — quite possible, yes.

Q. Do you say that you did have a Ruger at that time?

A. No, I never had a Ruger at that time.

Q. Do you recall him giving evidence that he wanted to buy your

Ruger 10/22?
A. Yeah, I heard him say that.

Q. And that was not the Ruger that he bought with the Pittaway
licence, but another Ruger?
A. I gather that’s what he was talking about, yes.

Q. What do you say about that evidence?

A. It’s got me beat because I never actually owned a Ruger.

[page 309]

Confronting the witness with the evidence of other witnesses

4.26 The witness has no explanation for this other than to suggest that his
brother Walter was mistaken.

Q. Well, he has said in evidence that he wanted to buy your Ruger

10/22. What do you say about that?
A. I say he’s wrong.

Q. Now do you say that that is an untruth in the sense of being

incorrect?
A. I think he might have been mistaken. He might have thought the
Ruger I had was mine.

Q. Did you also hear the evidence that he bought the Ruger 10/22
with money that he got from you and that he told you that he put
the gun back at your place, the Ruger 10/22, the unused Ruger
10/22 that he bought from the Horsley Park Gun Shop with the
Pittaway licence — do you recall him saying that he bought it with
money from you and that he told you after, he put that gun at
[XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
A. No, he never told me he put the gun at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle
Vale].

Q. But do you recall that evidence?

A. He might have said he put it there, yes.

Q. What do you say about that?

A. He never told me personally.

Q. Or do you say that is also incorrect?

A. He might have put it there but I’m saying I never seen it.

Q. He gave evidence that he told you that he put it there. What do

you say about that evidence?
A. No, I can’t recall him ever telling me.
Q. What do you say to his evidence that he was not rung by you
about moving the property from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] to
the alcove prior to the evening when it was actually moved?
A. He wasn’t rung?

Q. Yes. You have given evidence that you rang him earlier to discuss
moving stuff to his place?
A. I’ve — I discussed it with him earlier. I don’t know whether I said I
rang him earlier.

Q. Do you say that he is mistaken when he gave evidence that it

wasn’t discussed or didn’t think it was discussed till the evening of
the move?
A. No. We discussed it, oh — it could have been months before or
weeks or something. I’m not real sure. But I know we discussed it
before I actually moved it over there.

[page 310]

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you have been to the
Belanglo State Forest on four occasions with Karen?
A. I could say a lot of things but I’ll just say she’s wrong.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that that Telecom rope that was
found in the forest was yours?
A. I’ve never had any Telecom rope.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you used to keep a

Browning under the front seat of your car during the time that you
were married to Karen?
A. No, I never kept it under the front seat of my car.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you had a conversation

with Mr Anthony Sara, a workmate, that you had a 6-shot 38
revolver, the same as the DMR security used to use?10
A. I don’t know what the DMR security use.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you had conversations with
Mr Sara?
A. No. I never had no conversation like that with him.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you told Mr Koskinen that
you kept a gun under the seat of your car?11
A. I never said that to Mr Koskinen.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that in relation to Mr Noel

Wild, that you showed him your black powder revolver on a
different occasion to the occasion that he showed you his?
A. No. I’m pretty sure we showed them together.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you were a frequent

customer at Lombardo’s, do you remember Mrs Heller’s evidence?
A. Are you talking Lombardo’s or Mrs Heller?

Q. Lombardo’s?
A. Yes, Lombardo’s has got the milk bar. Mrs Heller has got the paper
shop.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion by her that you were a frequent
customer at her shop?
A. She’s definitely wrong.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you produced multiple

shooter’s licences to Mrs Breitkopf when she and her husband
raised the issue of them wanting to buy a gun?
A. I never had no multiple licences.

[page 311]

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you told Mr and Mrs
Breitkopf that you could get any sort of gun, crossbow or hand gun
or any sort of gun at all?
A. I’ve never said that to her at all.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that Mrs Breitkopf saw a Bowie
knife between the driver’s seat and the door of the Nissan?12
A. I — I can’t recall that ever being there. She might have seen me
with a knife. That’s about all I can say.

Q. And that you said words to the effect that it was a friendly
machete, or words to that effect?
A. No, I never said that at all.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that you showed Mr Whalan a

driver’s licence. Can you just answer that yes or no?
A. Definitely no.

Q. What do you say to the suggestion that Mr Onions has correctly

identified you as his assailant?
A. In his 94, 95, 96 statements he’s said --

Q. Just answer my question. What do you say to that?

A. He’s lying.

Q. So do you say that all of those pieces of evidence that I have

referred to are wrong?
A. Yes.

Summing up the effect of the previous answers for emphasis;

timing
4.27 This question sums up the effect of the series of questions about the
evidence of other witnesses. It is a very effective way to make the
point that the witness’s position is at variance to that of numerous
other witnesses with respect to the evidence they gave. The question
is a very strong point to finish on before the luncheon adjournment,
and the strength of the point would be with the jury to ponder
during the adjournment.

[page 312]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

Q. Mr Milat, just a few further questions. The camouflage mask on

which was engraved your initials, the word ‘Die’ and a skull and
crossbones, that has camouflage paint on it. You told us that you
painted it camouflage?
A. That’s right.
Punctuation and a powerful finish to the cross-examination —
letting the witness and the jury know that the cross-
examination is drawing to a close
4.28 It is appropriate now for the cross-examiner to put any remaining
issues to the witness, and Tedeschi finishes by putting to the witness
that he has indeed committed each of the crimes he has been
charged with. Tedeschi adopts a chronological approach to this and
puts the key elements and the key evidence of each crime to Milat.
This follows the same order as the charges appear in the indictment
and is both a pithy summary of the Crown case for the jury as well as
a final display of Milat’s denial of each of the numerous propositions
put (other than that he moved some items to the alcove at Walter’s
house), despite the overwhelming weight of the evidence that backs
each proposition. This is a powerful and dramatic finish to the cross-
examination. Such a powerful finish is not always possible — it
depends on the strength of the case and the nature of the evidence,
and the advocate must not overstate the effect of the evidence. Here,
the evidence was overwhelming, and it was appropriate to finish in
this strong and emphatic way.

Q. Did you use the model paints to paint it camouflage colour?

A. I used paint, whether it’s model paint, I suppose you’d call it model
paint, tins of paint.

Q. Is it the little tins of paint you used for painting models?

A. Yes, could be, yes.

Q. Mr Milat, I want to put to you that you attempted to abduct Mr

Onions on 25 January 1990. What do you say to that?
A. I never did.
Q. And that on that day you were at Lombardo’s where you offered
him a lift?
A. No I wasn’t.

Q. I suggest to you that you had his property in your car after the
abduction attempt failed?
A. No I didn’t.

Q. And that included in that property was the Next shirt which you
brought back to Guildford?
A. I never brought nothing back to Guildford.

[page 313]

Q. I suggest to you that around that time that you had either no
licence to drive or a licence in a false name?
A. You’re right there. I had no licence.

Q. And I suggest to you that your reason for having either no licence
or a licence in a false name was so that you could not be traced
whilst you were driving?
A. No, that wasn’t the reason at all.

Q. I suggest to you in relation to the murders of Deborah Everist and

James Gibson that you murdered them, either alone or in
company?
A. I never did.

Q. I suggest to you that you disposed of Mr Gibson’s gear in the

 Galston Gorge and that you knew that area?
A. I never disposed of nothing and I don’t really know the area.

Q. And I suggest to you that prior to disposing of James Gibson’s

backpack, that you cut out the name, or the name and address on
the flap of pack?
A. I had never seen his gear.

Q. I suggest to you that you took Deborah Everist’s property and that
that is how Deborah Everist’s sleeping bag came to be in your
home?
A. I never took nothing of hers and I don’t know anything about her
stuff at our place.

Q. I suggest to you in relation to the late Simone Schmidl that you

killed her, either alone or in company?
A. I never did.

Q. I suggest to you that you took her property and that is how it came
to be in your home?
A. I don’t know nothing about her property in our home.

Q. And I include within that property the cook set that was found in
your kitchen?
A. I don’t know nothing about any cook set in our kitchen.

Q. I suggest to you that you gave her backpack to your sister-in-law

Joan knowing that the real owner of that backpack was deceased?
A. I had no idea at that time that she owned that backpack.
Q. I suggest that you moved her High Sierra day pack from your
home and placed it in the alcove?
A. I never did that either.

Q. I suggest that you left the Loquat Valley t-shirt in the vicinity of her
body at around the time that she was murdered?
A. I’ve never left nothing anywhere near her body.

[page 314]

Q. And that you caused her grandfather t-shirt to be at the Guildford

house?
A. I don’t know nothing about the grandfather t-shirt.

Q. Concerning the murders of Anja Habschied and Gabor

Neugebauer, I suggest to you that you killed them either alone or
in company?
A. I know nothing about the deaths of them people.

Q. And that you used or someone with you used both a Ruger 10/22
and the Anschutz that was found in the alcove at that scene or
nearby?
A. I don’t know nothing about what you’re talking about.

Q. And that the Ruger that was used were the ruger parts found in
your wall cavity, in your home at [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale]?
That Ruger that was used, either by you or by a person with you at
that scene was the Ruger parts which were found in your wall
cavity?
A. I have no idea anything about it at all.
Q. And that you made and used at that scene in the forest, that is the
scene of the deaths of Habschied and Neugebauer, a leash device
consisting of a leash, sash cord, tape and a black plastic tie?
A. I never did.

Q. You used a piece of Telecom rope of yours?

A. I’ve never owned a Telecom rope or seen it.

Q. That you used rags for gags and/or blindfolds?

A. No.

Q. And that you or a person with you left two boxes of ammunition,
empty boxes of ammunition, at the scene?
A. I never did anything like that at all.

Q. In relation to the deaths of Caroline Clarke and Joanne Walters, I

suggest that you killed them, that you murdered them either alone
or in company?
A. Wrong again.

Q. And that at that scene you or someone with you used the same
Ruger to murder Caroline Clarke?
A. I never did.

Q. That you brought rags which were used as either a gag or

blindfold on Joanne Walters?
A. I never did.

Q. That you gave the Benetton top of Caroline Clarke to your

girlfriend, Chalinder Hughes?
A. No.

[page 315]

Q. And that during the shooting of Caroline Clarke that you used a
silencer?
A. I’ve no idea anything what you’re talking about.

Q. I suggest that some time in 1994, prior to your arrest, you moved a
whole lot of property from [XXXXXXXX] Street [Eagle Vale] to the
alcove and that that property included all of the items that were
found in the alcove by the police on 22 May 1994?
A. I did move some property there.

Q. I suggest that you hid the Ruger parts in the wall cavity of your
home?
A. I’ve no idea how they got there.

Q. I suggest that on the morning of your arrest that you attempted to

hide the receiver of the Ruger and the Browning pistol?
A. I never did.

Q. And I suggest to you that during your questioning by Sgt Leach that
all of the conversation that he has given in evidence took place?
A. It never did.

Q. I suggest further that you used ropes and/or sash cords both in the
attempt upon Mr Onions and in the abduction of Caroline Clarke
and Joanne Walters?
A. I don’t know anything about those events.

Q. And that the property that was found both at your home and at the
home of your brother Richard that belonged to Caroline Clarke
and Joanne Walters, came to be in those places because of your
involvement in those deaths?
A. No.

Q. And that you were responsible for all of the items of camping and
other equipment from the deceased backpackers being found in
the locations where they were found by the police?
A. No.

CROWN PROSECUTOR: That completes the cross-examination of the

accused.
(There was then some legal discussion in the absence of the jury)
ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 21 JUNE 1996

RE-EXAMINATION
4.29 On 24 June 1996, Milat was re-examined briefly by his counsel, Terry
Martin. The evidence given by Milat during re-examination included that a
number of the items of incriminating evidence found at Eagle Vale had come
from the family home at Guildford (the implication being that other family
members may have brought them to Eagle Vale). Milat was

[page 316]

asked about bulk purchases of ammunition including Eley and Winchester

.22 calibre being shared among himself and his brothers. He stated that he
was aware of a Four Corners program that had been to air on the ABC
network about the Belanglo State Forest murders before the raid on his house.
He was asked about his work boots and said that he usually would leave them
in the garage near his boot polish, but that on the night before the arrest he
had brought the work truck home so did not go through the garage, and that
he could have left them on the front porch. He said the boots he wore to work
were not suede, but hard leather. He also had other new unused pairs of work
boots at the house. He would use the suede boots when he went out socially
on his Harley-Davidson motorbike. He was asked what he would have done if
he had seen the Ruger receiver in the boot in the cupboard. He replied that he
would have thought it had been put there accidentally or by someone who
wanted him to have it, and that he would have kept it so that he could ask
somebody about it. He was asked some questions about the cavalry sword
which he said was in David Milat’s bedroom at the Guildford house and that
anyone living in there could have had access to it. He explained that he did
not ask Shirley about any items found because his solicitor had told him not
to speak to anybody. He explained his possession of the map located in the
hall cupboard of the area including Belanglo State Forest as the kind of map
he would be given by his employer to get to jobs. He was asked some
questions about his having played ‘skirmish’ in the past and about the fact
that he had equipment for this. He said that at the Horsley Park Gun Shop,
the purchase transaction paperwork would be left to clerical staff there after
he handed them a licence. He was asked about his mother’s condition and he
said that she was in a wheelchair and frail, and was emotionally very upset.
He also gave evidence about when he acquired chrome wheel trims and a
rear-mounted tyre rack for his Nissan.

1 See Photos 8 and 22.

2 At this stage, the cross-examiner knows that the witness is aware of the photographs that
the prosecution has in its possession showing Milat holding a Winchester 30/30.
3 The date of Milat’s arrest and of the search of the various Milat family properties.
4 The Winchester 30/30 was marked for identification so that it could be clear to those
managing the various items collected that it was the item shown to the witness.
5 Exhibit AF was a detailed aerial photo showing the Belanglo State Forest and other
relevant places in the vicinity.
6 This photograph clearly showed that Ivan Milat had a moustache when the photograph
was taken.
7 Milat’s vehicle had been photographed going through a red light camera on 16 January
1991. Simone Schmidl had disappeared on 20 January 1991. The photograph showed
the vehicle had curtains across the rear window that were drawn closed.
8 Evidence from Murphy was to the effect that Milat had asked him for a set of handcuffs.
These were never supplied. However, the use of electrical ties in the restraining device
would have been a viable alternative to handcuffs for the purpose of restraining someone.
An abductor may well have considered obtaining a pair of handcuffs.
9 The reader will recall that Onions had given evidence that his offender, ‘Bill’, had
expressed such views.
10 Mr Sara had given evidence to this effect.
11 Evidence had also been given by Karen Milat that Ivan had on occasions had a pistol
under the front seat of their car.
12 A Bowie knife (with camouflage-coloured paint on its handle) was located in Milat’s work
bag found in bedroom 4 at Eagle Vale: see Photo 76. The evidence from the pathologist
called by the prosecution was to the effect that this knife was not consistent with having
caused the stab wounds to Joanne Walters or Caroline Clarke. However, in relation to the
other victims, it could not be included or excluded as a possible weapon, since their
remains were too weathered to be able to establish this one way or another. Another
witness who was a workmate of Milat gave evidence that a knife is used for cutting rubber
in profiling work with the RTA and he had seen Milat with a large bladed ‘Rambo’ style of
knife that looked very similar.
[page 317]
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUDING REMARKS

On 26 July 1996 the jury returned from the jury room to the old Banco Court
with their verdict. Ivan Milat was found guilty on each charge — a total of
seven charges of murder and one charge (in relation to Onions) of detain for
advantage.
Justice David Hunt proceeded almost immediately to sentencing. There
was no request for an adjournment and no plea in mitigation, apart from
Milat saying to the judge, ‘I’m not guilty of it. That’s all I have to say’.
In the course of his remarks on sentence, his Honour stated:
The case against the prisoner at the conclusion of the evidence and the addresses was, in my
view, an overwhelming one. Although his legal representatives displayed a tactical ability of a
high order, and conducted the defence in a skillful and responsible manner,1 in my view the
jury’s verdicts were, in the end, inevitable. I entirely agree with those verdicts. Any other, in
my view, would have flown in the face of reality.2

His Honour sentenced Ivan Milat to a fixed term of six years penal
servitude in relation to the detaining of Paul Onions for advantage. In
relation to each of the other murder charges he sentenced Milat to penal
servitude for the term of his natural life — a total of seven life sentences.
Milat’s appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal was
dismissed, as was his application for special leave to appeal to the High Court
of Australia.
What made the case against Milat so overwhelming was the combination of
outstanding police work, which produced numerous powerful items of
evidence, with the skill by which that evidence was analysed, assembled and
presented by the prosecution.
Tedeschi’s mastery of the complex brief shines through his very skillful
cross-examination of Milat. Tedeschi was able to deploy classic techniques of
advocacy with consummate skill and effect. Mostly these were planned in
advance as part of his thorough preparation of the case, but at other times
they arose from intuition based on the advocate’s sense of the significance

[page 318]

and meaning of the accused’s evidence as it unfolded. So the reader will find
throughout the cross-examination excellent examples of the four chief
techniques of cross-examination referred to in John Munkman’s landmark
work The Technique of Advocacy;3 namely, probing, confronting, insinuating
and undermining. But there is so much more as well. Tedeschi uses timing
and pace very effectively; he uses the technique of ‘echoing’ and ‘relating
back’ to remind the witness and the jury of what has previously been
established or said; he demonstrates how to maintain control of the witness
and how to keep the witness on track and responsive to the questions being
asked; he demonstrates outstanding skill at extrapolating dubious answers to
their absurd extremes; he demonstrates the importance of ‘building’, and the
careful ordering of questions to ensure the ‘closing of the gates’ before
confronting the witness with a damaging fact; he breaks complex questions
carefully into their component parts; he lays very careful groundwork and in
the most effective order; he uses exhibits to great effect, often involving the
witness in explaining or demonstrating their significance; he uses ‘narrative’
questioning and sequencing of questions to great effect; he breaks down the
questioning into clear chapters and themes so that they can be followed by
the jury and ‘tied off’ with an appropriate concluding question. There are
many other techniques identified in this book, and the reader should find the
Index herein a useful guide to the techniques used and where examples of
them can be found throughout this book.
Perhaps special mention should also be made of the skill with which
Tedeschi keeps the jury very much involved throughout the process of
questioning. It is important to remember that the jurors want to follow and
understand the story as it unfolds, and Tedeschi is always attentive to this
important dynamic of presenting the story well.
I have attempted to identify many lessons for the advocate in this cross-
examination. I am sure that readers will find many others that I have not
specifically noted, and I would encourage readers to look for these as they will
surely be found.
Much has been said and written, by many authors, about cross-
examination. One of the finest treatments of the subject is that by John
Munkman, referred to above, in which he gives many excellent examples to
illustrate his propositions.
The authors of the Australian Advocacy Institute’s Advocacy Manual4 state:
To cross-examine effectively, you must be able to:
Understand the purpose and scope of cross-examination
Know the rules of evidence

[page 319]

Cross-examine consistently with the case theory

Use short, leading propositional questions
Apply the ‘ten commandments of cross-examination’
Control the witness
Structure cross-examination effectively
Use the gate-closing technique
Use prior inconsistent statements or evidence
 Use documents
Comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn
Maintain a demeanour consistent with the nature of cross-examination
Avoid unnecessary confrontation and aggression
Assess the risk of unhelpful answers and prepare to manage them

The ‘ten commandments of cross-examination’ referred to were

expounded in a famous 1975 lecture delivered for the National Institute of
Trial Lawyers in Montreal by the late Cornell Professor, Irving Younger. They
have been summarised as follows:5
1. Be brief.
2. Short questions, plain words.
3. Always ask leading questions.
4. Don’t ask a question the answer to which you do not know in advance.
5. Listen to the witness’s answers.
6. Don’t quarrel with the witness.
7. Don’t allow the witness to repeat his direct testimony.
8. Don’t permit the witness to explain his answers.
9. Don’t ask the ‘one question too many.’
10. Save the ultimate point of your cross for summation.
The reader will see examples of all of these propositions deployed in
Tedeschi’s cross-examination of Ivan Milat.

1 The author respectfully agrees with Justice Hunt’s comments about Ivan Milat’s legal
representatives, Terry Martin as lead counsel and Peter Callaghan as his junior counsel,
both instructed by Andrew Boe, solicitor. This was a very capable defence team that
represented Milat with great skill, integrity and professionalism.
2 Quoted by Gleeson GJ in R v Ivan Robert Marko Milat, NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Meagher
JA and Newman J, 1998, BC9800394 at 5.
3 Butterworths, London, 1991.
4 Australian Advocacy Institute, 2008, p 103.
5 See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Younger#The_10_Commandments_of_Cross_E‐
xamination>.
 [page 321]

APPENDIX 1
TRIAL EXHIBIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1 Police photo showing hall cupboard at Eagle Vale (trial

exhibit)
Photo 2 Police photo showing Ruger receiver and boots (trial exhibit)

[page 322]

Photo 3 Police photo showing wall cavity view (trial exhibit)

Photo 4 Police photo showing trigger, bolt assembly, magazine etc
(trial exhibit)

[page 323]
Photo 5 Police photo showing Ruger magazine (trial exhibit)

Photo 6 Police photo showing black powder revolver in box (trial

exhibit)
 [page 324]

Photo 7 Police photo showing Ruger butt plate on garage shelf (trial
exhibit)

Photo 8 Police photo showing guns in box in alcove (trial exhibit)

 [page 325]

Photo 9 Police photo showing new Ruger and box (trial exhibit)

Photo 10 Police photo showing barrel bands, Eley ammunition and

Sarnia box (trial exhibit)

[page 326]
Photo 11 Police photo showing cardboard box on bed with shirtcloth
(trial exhibit)

Photo 12 Police photo showing Winchester cartridges in bag on bed

(trial exhibit)

[page 327]
Photo 13 Police photo showing Winchester firing pin impression (trial
exhibit)

Photo 14 Police photo showing Select Fire manual (trial exhibit)

 [page 328]

Photo 15 Police photo showing Ruger manual (trial exhibit)

Photo 16 Police photo showing paintball gun (trial exhibit)

[page 329]
Photo 17 Police photo showing paintball mask and magazine (trial
exhibit). The various engravings on the mask are too small to
be seen in this photo but are clearly visible on the actual
exhibit.

Photo 18 Police photo showing Browning pistol and corner of washing

machine (trial exhibit)

[page 330]
Photo 19 Police photo showing ‘IM’ marking on coloured work pants
(trial exhibit)

Photo 20 Police photo showing cloth gag from Joanne Walters (trial
exhibit)

[page 331]
Photo 21 Police photo showing canvas backpack and contents including
Anschutz bolt (trial exhibit)
Photo 22 Police photo showing Anschutz and Winchester rifles on
blanket (trial exhibit)

[page 332]

Photo 23 Police photo showing bolt and cloth from locker at Guildford
(trial exhibit)
Photo 24 Police photo showing grey locker (trial exhibit)

[page 333]
Photo 25 Police photo showing boxes in alcove and day pack (trial
exhibit)

Photo 26 Police photo showing blue High Sierra day pack (trial exhibit)
 [page 334]

Photo 27 Police photo showing coin bag with cartridge adaptors (trial
exhibit)
Photo 28 Police photo showing contents of console compartment (trial
exhibit)

[page 335]

Photo 29 Police photo showing garage, car and shelving at Eagle Vale
 (trial exhibit)

Photo 30 Police photo showing Colt revolver and copper-tipped bullets

(trial exhibit)

[page 336]
Photo 31 Police photo showing model box and water bottle (trial
exhibit)

[page 337]
Photo 32 Police photos showing water bottle under Polylight (‘Simi’)
(trial exhibit)

[page 338]
Photo 33 Police photo showing foreign currency (trial exhibit)

Photo 34 Police photo showing console compartment and surgical glove

(trial exhibit)

[page 339]
Photo 35 Police photo showing console with 20 pence coin (trial
exhibit)
Photo 36 Police photo showing 20 pence coin (trial exhibit)

[page 340]

Photo 37 Police photo showing console and threaded barrel cap (trial
exhibit)

Photo 38 Police photo showing black powder tins etc in bedroom 3

(trial exhibit)
 [page 341]

Photo 39 Police photo showing butt of revolver (trial exhibit). The word
‘Texas’ has been faintly engraved below the serial number.

Photo 40 Police photo showing Cadpac bag on garage shelving (trial

exhibit)
 [page 342]

Photo 41 Police photo showing Arno strap (trial exhibit)

Photo 42 Police photo showing restraint device from forest (trial exhibit)

[page 343]
Photo 43 Police photo showing pillow slip on garage shelf (trial exhibit)

Photo 44 Police photo showing close-up of pillow slip and stain (trial
exhibit)

[page 344]
Photo 45 Police photo showing close-up of sash cord and blood stain
(trial exhibit)

Photo 46 Police photo showing sash cord in tool box (trial exhibit)

[page 345]
Photo 47 Police photo showing pull ties on garage shelf (trial exhibit)

[page 346]

Photo 48 Police photo showing pull tie on shelf (trial exhibit)

Photo 49 Police photo showing pull tie G1 on shelf (trial exhibit)

[page 347]

Photo 50 Police photo showing black tape on floor of garage (trial

exhibit)
Photo 51 Police photo showing black electrical tape in bedroom 3 (trial
exhibit)

[page 348]

Photo 52 Police photo showing black tape in drawer in bedroom 3 (trial

exhibit)
 [page 349]

Photo 53 Police photo showing blue nylon bag on shelf in garage (trial
exhibit)

[page 350]
Photo 54 Police photo showing Salewa and Vau de Hogan bags (trial
exhibit)

Photo 55 Police photo showing Vau de Hogan bag and Compact-o-Mat

strap (trial exhibit)

[page 351]
Photo 56 Police photo showing Salewa sleeping bag in bag (trial
exhibit)

[page 352]
Photo 57 Police photo showing green sleeping bag in bedroom 1 (trial
exhibit)

Photo 58 Police photo showing inside of unzipped green sleeping bag

(trial exhibit)

[page 353]
Photo 59 Police photo of Olympus ‘Trip’ camera (trial exhibit)

Photo 60 Police photo showing homemade silencer (trial exhibit)

[page 354]
Photo 61 Police photo showing JW 15.22 calibre rifle with scope (trial
exhibit)
Photo 62 Police photo showing box of Winchester ammunition (trial
exhibit)

[page 355]

Photo 63 Police photo showing box of Winner ammunition in forest

 (trial exhibit)

Photo 64 Police photo of Milat’s Nissan Patrol (trial exhibit)

[page 356]
Photo 65 Police photo showing Caribee sleeping bag cover (trial
exhibit)

Photo 66 Police photo showing Karrimat sleeping mat (trial exhibit)

 [page 357]

Photo 67 Police photo showing blue tent (trial exhibit)

Photo 68 Police photo showing blue and orange Ultimate sleeping bag
(trial exhibit)

[page 358]
Photo 69 Police photo showing rags on work bench in Guildford
garage (trial exhibit)

Photo 70 Police photo showing yellow grandfather shirt (trial exhibit)

[page 359]
Photo 71 Police photo showing Next shirt (trial exhibit)

Photo 72 Police photo showing interior of Nissan with bullet damage

(trial exhibit)

[page 360]
Photo 73 Close-up photo of Schmidl’s Salewa backpack and High
Sierra day pack on train (trial exhibit)

Photo 74 Police photo of cook set in kitchen cupboard (trial exhibit)

 [page 361]

Photo 75 Police photo showing cook set (trial exhibit)

Photo 76 Police photo showing Triple M bag and contents (trial exhibit)

[page 362]
Photo 77 Police photo showing Telecom rope from Area A (trial exhibit)
 [page 363]

APPENDIX 2
TRIAL EXHIBIT DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1 Floor plan of Ivan Milat’s house at Eagle Vale

[page 364]

[page 365]
Diagram 2 Flowchart showing evidence relating to the Ruger 10/22 and
Anschutz rifles (based on Dutton’s evidence) — Trial Exhibit
LC

[page 366]
[page 367]
Diagram 3 Flowchart showing evidence of Ruger 10/22 and Anschutz
rifles (based on Prior’s evidence) — Trial Exhibit ML
 INDEX

References are to paragraphs

A
Absurd explanations …. 2.5, 2.28, 2.33, 2.37, 2.53, 2.63, 2.64, 2.77, 2.78, 2.79,
2.96, 2.98, 3.17, 3.25, 3.63, 4.12, 4.13
Accumulating consistent themes …. 3.94
Accumulating evidence …. 3.66
Adjournment
use of jury freshness …. 3.69
Admissions
offering opportunities to admit …. 3.56
Aggregating evidence …. 3.28, 3.44
Alcove items …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.10, 1.12, 2.21, 2.28, 2.30, 2.69, 2.77, 2.90, 3.62,
3.63, 3.64, 4.2, 4.3, 4.14, 4.28
Anschutz rifle …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.73, 2.77, 2.79, 3.55,
3.56, 3.64
‘Answer yes or no’ …. 3.86
Answers
admitting unavoidable truths …. 2.85
borne of necessity …. 2.84
building upon answers …. 2.8
‘hedging’ answers …. 2.3, 2.14, 2.40, 2.49, 3.14
 helpful ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers …. 2.31
‘I can’t recall, but if you say so’ …. 3.4, 3.53
‘I’m not 100 per cent sure’ …. 2.14
insisting on precise answers …. 3.10, 3.31
knowing the answer …. 2.68, 3.84
paying attention to answers …. 2.18
pressing for clear answers …. 3.42
pressing for obvious answers …. 2.81
probing truthfulness …. 3.32
qualified by ‘probably’ …. 3.31
recanting and prevaricating …. 3.45
reluctant answers …. 3.67
simple questions with obvious answers …. 2.48, 2.49
‘smart’ or ‘clever’ answers …. 2.12
straying answers …. 2.6, 2.10, 2.41, 2.89
vague answers …. 2.6, 2.15
Approaching the witness with exhibit …. 2.30, 2.73
Arno brand strap …. 3.25
Arriving at the conclusion …. 2.82
Asking questions in parts …. 3.97
Asking witness to describe content of exhibit …. 3.80
Asking witness to explain to jury …. 2.26, 2.74, 2.100, 2.104, 2.106
Asking witness to read aloud from exhibit …. 2.51
Assertions as questions …. 2.42
‘Assuming this is correct, what then?’ …. 2.97
Attention to detail …. 2.69
Authority of cross-examiner …. 2.1

B
Background to trial
Buxton property …. 1.4, 1.9, 1.12
Court of Criminal Appeal …. 1.12
defence closing address …. 1.10, 1.12
defence opening address …. 1.12
discovery of bodies …. 1.2
Eagle Vale home …. 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12
Guildford home …. 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, 1.12
Hilltop homes …. 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, 1.12
Nissan Patrol vehicle …. 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 3.101, 4.20
overview …. 1.1
Paul Onions …. 1.3, 1.4, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2
Task Force Air …. 1.2
evidence gathering …. 1.4, 1.5, 1.10
information line …. 1.3
Paul Onions incident …. 1.3
Wombeyan Caves property …. 1.4, 1.9
Benetton brand shirt …. 1.5, 1.12, 3.22, 3.32, 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37
Black powder revolver …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.28, 2.30, 2.50, 2.60, 4.5
Bradhurst, Dr …. 1.2, 1.4
Breaking the golden rule …. 2.68
Browne v Dunne, rule in …. 2.59
Browning items …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.28, 2.60, 2.67
‘Building’ questions …. 2.44
Building on opportunities …. 2.25
Building the point …. 3.66
Building upon answers …. 2.8
Buxton property …. 1.4, 1.9, 1.12

C
Cable ties …. 1.5, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14, 3.15
Cadpac bag …. 3.9, 3.25
Camouflage paint …. 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.7, 2.30, 2.31, 2.80
Camp stove …. 1.5
‘Can you think of a single reason?’ …. 2.55
‘Can you think of any reason why?’ …. 2.57
Capitalising on absurd explanations …. 2.78
Caribee brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
Changing themes smoothly …. 4.6
Clarifying a question …. 3.57, 3.97, 4.9
Clarity in questions …. 4.11
Clarity of thought ‘on the run’ …. 2.79
‘Climax’ questions …. 2.54, 2.88
Closing the gates …. 2.4, 2.5, 4.15
Cloths and rags …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.79, 3.26, 3.27,
3.28, 3.29
Co-incidence evidence …. 1.10
Colt revolver items …. 1.5, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19, 3.39, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46, 3.51, 3.52
Combining significant evidence …. 3.23
Comments during questioning …. 2.22
Compact-o-mat band …. 1.2, 1.5, 3.20
Comparing items …. 3.24, 3.26
Concluding questions …. 3.68
Conflicting statements by witness …. 3.74
Confronting the witness
exhibits, with …. 2.50, 3.12, 3.17
evidence in an exhibit …. 4.12, 4.13
forcing an answer …. 3.18
undisputed and disputed items …. 2.65
force of evidence …. 2.95
forensic evidence …. 3.3
incriminating evidence …. 3.24
irrefutable and damaging evidence …. 3.69
laying the groundwork …. 3.22
other witnesses …. 4.26
Control
care and control …. 3.86
establishing control …. 2.1, 2.51
maintaining control …. 2.10, 2.56, 3.47, 3.95
timely persistence, and …. 3.91
Conveying disbelief of answer given …. 2.62
Correcting yourself …. 3.48, 3.98
Court of Criminal Appeal
dismissal of appeal …. 1.12
Creating impact …. 2.74
Credibility of witness
absurd answers …. 2.64
closing the gates …. 2.5
exploring …. 4.14, 4.15
exposing lack of credibility …. 2.48, 2.49, 4.12, 4.13
‘flag-planting’ questions …. 2.43
highlighting lack of credibility …. 2.38
‘I’m not 100 per cent sure’ answer …. 2.14
simple questions with obvious answers …. 2.48, 2.49
Cross-examination techniques see Techniques
Cross-examiner’s closing address
‘climax’ questions …. 2.54
foreshadowing material for submission …. 4.4
putting the case …. 2.76, 3.33
reductio ad absurdum question …. 2.37
stringing together doubtful assertions …. 2.70

D
Defence closing address …. 1.10, 1.12
Defence opening address …. 1.12
Details at the ready …. 3.13
Development of crucial evidence …. 3.1
Dramatic questions …. 3.88
Drawing strands of evidence together …. 3.5
Driver’s licence …. 3.94
E
Eagle Vale home …. 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12, 2.30, 2.50, 2.69, 3.9, 3.22,
3.24, 3.25, 3.28, 4.3, 4.8, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.21, 4.29
Echoing …. 2.53, 2.72, 2.80, 3.50, 3.63
Effective responses …. 4.12
Electrical tape …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.9
Electrical tie …. 1.2, 3.9
Eley ammunition …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.11, 1.12, 3.97, 3.98, 4.29
Emphasising a point …. 3.88
Emphasising powerful linkages …. 3.20
Establishing authority of cross-examiner …. 2.1
Establishing familiarity with component of crime …. 2.21
Establishing familiarity with place …. 4.16
Establishing groundwork …. 4.3
Establishing likelihood of contact with crucial exhibit …. 3.8
Establishing possession of incriminating evidence …. 2.20
Evidence see also Incriminating evidence; Photographs as evidence
co-incidence evidence …. 1.10
cross-examiner’s knowledge …. 2.40
expert evidence …. 3.13
ballistics expert …. 2.36
camouflage paint …. 2.30
forensic evidence …. 3.3
other witnesses …. 4.25
photo identification evidence …. 1.11, 1.12
Evidence items
alcove items …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.10, 1.12, 2.21, 2.28, 2.30, 2.69, 2.77, 2.90,
3.62, 3.63, 3.64, 4.2, 4.3, 4.14, 4.28
Anschutz rifle …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.77, 2.79, 3.55, 3.56,
3.64
Arno brand strap …. 3.25
Benetton brand shirt …. 1.5, 1.12, 3.22, 3.32, 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37
black powder revolver …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.28, 2.30, 2.50, 2.60, 4.5
Browning items …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.28, 2.60, 2.67
cable ties …. 1.5, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14, 3.15
camouflage paint …. 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.7, 2.30, 2.31, 2.80
camp stove …. 1.5
Cadpac bag …. 3.9, 3.25
Caribee brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
cloths and rags …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.79, 3.26,
3.27, 3.28, 3.29
Colt revolver items …. 1.5, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19, 3.39, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46, 3.51, 3.52
Compact-o-mat band …. 1.2, 1.5, 3.20
Court of Criminal Appeal …. 1.12
driver’s licence …. 3.94
electrical tape …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.9
electrical tie …. 1.2, 3.9
Eley ammunition …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.11, 1.12, 3.97, 3.98, 4.29
foreign currency …. 1.5, 2.99
green sleeping bag …. 1.5, 3.24
green surgical glove …. 1.5, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.108
Groening brand bag …. 3.29
Harley-Davidson motorcycle …. 2.80, 2.84, 3.38, 3.39, 3.43, 3.45, 3.50,
3.51, 4.29
High Sierra brand day pack …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.78, 2.80, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86,
2.90, 2.94, 3.44, 3.66, 4.3, 4.4
Holden Jackaroo vehicle …. 1.5, 1.11, 2.99, 2.103, 2.104, 3.44, 3.56
holster …. 2.28, 3.39, 3.41, 3.45
JW15 Clayco rifle …. 1.8, 1.12, 3.59, 3.60, 3.61
Karrimat brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
Lithgow rifle …. 1.8
Next brand shirt …. 1.8, 1.12, 4.21
Nissan Patrol vehicle …. 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 4.20, 4.29
Olympus camera …. 1.5, 3.22, 3.23, 3.43, 4.21, 4.22
paintball gun …. 2.30, 2.60
paintball mask …. 1.5, 2.30, 2.60, 2.66
police recording of interview with witness …. 4.7, 4.8, 4.11
postcard …. 1.5, 4.12, 4.13
restraint device …. 1.2, 3.1, 3.9, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13, 3.15, 3.16, 3.20
Ruger items …. 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, 2.16, 2.20, 2.21, 2.23, 2.24,
2.25, 2.28, 2.30, 2.36, 2.39, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.50, 2.53, 2.54, 2.59, 2.67,
2.68, 2.69, 3.26, 3.28, 3.50, 3.61, 4.29
Salewa brand backpack …. 1.4
Salewa brand sleeping bag …. 1.5, 3.24
Salewa brand sleeping bag cover …. 1.5, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20
sash cords …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.13, 3.15, 3.23
Select Fire manual …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.39, 2.40, 2.42, 2.44, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54
shooter’s licence …. 1.5, 1.6, 2.21, 3.85, 3.86, 3.87, 3.90, 3.94
silencer …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.58, 3.59
 similar items of evidence …. 2.90
SKK rifle …. 1.6, 2.30, 2.80, 2.84, 3.39
Telecom rope …. 1.2, 1.7, 1.12
tent equipment …. 1.5, 1.7, 1.12, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.20
Ultimate brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
water bottle …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.96, 2.98
Winchester items …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 1.12, 2.11, 2.20, 2.36, 3.64, 3.66, 4.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.29
work boots …. 1.5, 2.4, 4.29
yellow haversack …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.77, 2.90, 2.92
yellow t-shirt …. 1.8, 4.21
Examining details of items …. 3.27
Exasperated ‘oh!’ …. 2.46
Exposing matters …. 3.64

F
Finishing a theme
leading questions with one answer …. 2.32
Finishing cross-examination …. 4.28
‘Flag-planting’ questions …. 2.43, 2.86, 2.87
‘Focusing’ questions …. 2.43, 2.75, 2.86, 2.87, 3.30, 3.90
‘Follow through’ questions …. 2.88
Force of witness numbers …. 4.25
Forcing a ‘turnaround’ …. 2.17, 2.77
Forcing an election …. 3.74
Foreign currency …. 1.5, 2.99
Forensic evidence
confronting the witness …. 3.3
Franchi brand rifle …. 3.39

G
Golden rule of cross-examination …. 2.68
Grabbing attention of jury …. 2.29
Green sleeping bag …. 1.5, 3.24
Green surgical glove …. 1.5, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.108
Groening brand bag …. 3.29
‘Groundwork’ questions …. 3.34, 3.37, 3.78, 3.93, 4.3
Guildford home …. 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, 1.12, 2.71, 3.6, 3.8, 3.26, 3.28, 3.39,
4.21, 4.24, 4.29

H
Habits of witness
identifying habits …. 3.49
linking through witness …. 2.2
Harley-Davidson motorcycle …. 2.80, 2.84, 3.38, 3.39, 3.43, 3.45, 3.50, 3.51,
4.29
‘Have you got any explanation’ …. 3.6
‘Hedging’ answers …. 2.3, 2.14, 2.40, 2.49, 3.14
Helpful ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers …. 2.31
High Sierra brand day pack …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.78, 2.80, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86,
2.90, 2.94, 3.44, 3.66, 4.3, 4.4
Hilltop homes …. 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, 1.12, 2.21, 2.22, 2.28, 2.30, 2.69,
2.77, 2.90, 3.62, 3.63, 3.64, 4.2, 4.3, 4.14, 4.28
Holden Jackaroo vehicle …. 1.5, 1.11, 2.99, 2.103, 2.104, 3.44, 3.56
Holster …. 2.28, 3.39, 3.41, 3.45
Hypothetical questions …. 2.108

I
‘I can’t recall, but if you say so’ …. 3.4, 3.53
Identification evidence
photo identification evidence …. 1.11, 1.12
photo identification procedure …. 1.3, 1.12
Identification features
effective use of photographs …. 4.18
moustache …. 1.3, 1.12, 3.69, 3.70, 3.71, 3.72, 3.73, 3.76, 3.78, 3.80
putting to witness …. 4.17
Identifying clues in reluctant answers …. 3.67
Identifying habits of witness …. 3.49
Identifying significant concessions …. 4.12
Incriminating evidence
confronting the witness …. 3.24
establishing possession …. 2.20
photographs as evidence …. 3.40
probing …. 3.24
connections to evidence …. 2.83
knowledge of evidence …. 2.96
Insinuation …. 2.27, 2.39, 2.96, 2.108
Insisting on precise answers …. 3.10, 3.31
Intuitive questions …. 3.51, 4.5
‘Is this what you’re saying’ …. 3.65
Itemisation …. 2.103, 2.105
Items of evidence see Evidence items

J
Joint criminal enterprise …. 1.10
Jury directions
appropriate time …. 4.10
Jones v Dunkel …. 3.7
right to remain silent …. 4.10
Jury warnings
photo identification evidence …. 1.11
‘Just answer the question’ …. 2.41, 2.55, 2.56
‘Just listen to my question’ …. 2.89
JW15 Clayco rifle …. 1.8, 1.12, 3.59, 3.60, 3.61

K
Karrimat brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
Knowing the answer …. 2.68, 3.84
Knowing when not to challenge …. 4.20

L
Leading questions
only one answer questions …. 2.32
Leaving jury to make connections …. 2.94
‘Light bulb’ moments …. 2.91
Linking
 emphasising powerful linkages …. 3.20
finding and highlighting links …. 4.2
habits of witness through witness …. 2.2
making linkages …. 3.9, 3.29
powerful linkages …. 3.20, 3.22
probing, and …. 2.99
Linking back …. 2.7, 2.53
Listening to the judge …. 4.9
Lithgow rifle …. 1.8

M
Maintaining control …. 2.10, 2.56, 3.47
Maintaining pace of questioning …. 2.45, 3.62, 4.21
Making connections between items
aggregating evidence …. 3.28
examining details of items …. 3.27
unifying evidence …. 3.28
Missed opportunities …. 3.102
Moving on from issues …. 2.19, 3.62, 3.85
Multi-layered advocacy …. 2.14

N
Next brand shirt …. 1.8, 1.12, 4.21
Nissan Patrol vehicle …. 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 3.101, 4.29
Not taking ‘no’ for an answer …. 2.38
O
Offering opportunities to admit …. 3.56
Olympus camera …. 1.5, 3.22, 3.23, 3.43, 4.21, 4.22
Onions, Paul …. 1.3, 1.4, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.94, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 3.40, 3.69,
3.72, 3.77, 3.80, 3.100, 4.12, 4.17, 4.21, 4.25
Open-ended questions …. 3.84
Opening sequence of questions …. 2.1
Order of questions …. 3.25, 3.34, 3.41
Other witnesses
witness evidence at odds …. 4.25
confronting the witness …. 4.26
summing up effect …. 4.27

P
Paintball gun …. 2.30, 2.60
Paintball mask …. 1.5, 2.30, 2.60, 2.63, 2.66
Patient development of evidence …. 3.1
Paying attention to answers …. 2.18
Persistence …. 2.49, 2.55, 2.58, 2.92, 3.91, 3.92
Photographs as evidence see also Identification evidence
drawing out helpful evidence …. 3.82
identification features …. 4.17
effective use of photographs …. 4.18
moustache …. 1.12, 3.78, 3.80
knowing the answer …. 3.84
narrowing timeframes …. 4.3
 overview …. 3.39, 3.45
pressing for clear answers …. 3.42
probing …. 3.40, 3.46
spotting incriminating evidence …. 3.40
use of photographs …. 3.100, 4.1, 4.18
value of evidence …. 3.38
writing of date …. 3.50, 3.51
Pinning down the point …. 3.91
Pinning down sequence of events …. 4.3
‘Please explain to the jury’ phrase …. 2.26
Pointing out weaknesses to witness …. 3.75
Police recording of interview with witness …. 4.7, 4.8, 4.11
Politeness …. 4.7
Postcard …. 1.5, 4.12, 4.13
Pressing
clear answers, for …. 3.42
emphasis …. 3.36
obvious answers, for …. 2.81
overview …. 2.55
significance of evidence …. 3.23
undermining, and …. 2.36
unexpected opportunities …. 2.109
Prevaricating …. 3.45
Previous admissions of witness …. 2.52
Previous evidence …. 2.18, 3.70, 3.96, 4.14
Previous similar behaviour of witness …. 2.16
Probing
absurd position …. 4.13
important linkages …. 2.99
incriminating evidence …. 2.83, 3.24
knowledge of incriminating evidence …. 2.96
issues uncomfortable to witness …. 2.60
methodology using an exhibit …. 3.61
‘odd one out’ …. 2.103, 2.105
overview …. 2.23, 3.59, 3.60, 3.71
photographs as evidence …. 3.40, 3.46
plausible theories from evidence …. 2.67
previously stated positions by witness …. 3.70
significance of evidence …. 3.23
strength of evidence …. 4.22
truthfulness of answers …. 3.32
unusual items …. 2.103, 3.101
Provocative questions …. 3.61
Punctuation …. 3.16, 3.21, 3.83, 4.28
Putting identification features to witness …. 4.17
Putting the case …. 2.76, 3.33, 3.99

Q
Questions by witness
answering …. 2.107
not answering …. 2.34, 2.58, 2.101, 3.54
Questions in the nature of submissions …. 4.4
Quick thinking …. 2.9

R
Reasonable person
acting appropriately …. 3.35, 3.77, 3.101, 4.23
expecting if an answer were true …. 3.32
significance of inactivity …. 3.89
Recapping previous evidence …. 3.96
Recanting …. 3.45
Recreating state of affairs …. 4.14
Reductio ad absurdum question …. 2.37
Re-examination …. 4.29
Reinforcing previous evidence …. 3.43, 3.52
Reining in the witness …. 2.24
Relating back …. 3.50
Reluctant answers …. 3.67
Reluctant partial concessions by witness …. 2.61
Reminding
overview …. 2.16
previous admissions …. 2.52
previous evidence …. 2.18, 4.14
previous similar behaviour …. 2.16
Repetition …. 2.35, 2.93
Rephrasing a question …. 3.98
Restraint device …. 1.2, 3.1, 3.9, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13, 3.15, 3.16, 3.20
Rhetorical questions …. 2.28, 4.19
Right to remain silent …. 4.10
Ruger items …. 1.5, 1.6, 1.12, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, 2.16, 2.20, 2.21, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25,
2.28, 2.30, 2.36, 2.39, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.50, 2.53, 2.54, 2.59, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69,
3.26, 3.28, 3.50, 3.61, 4.29
Rule in Browne v Dunne
overview …. 2.59

S
Salewa brand backpack …. 1.4
Salewa brand sleeping bag …. 1.5, 3.24
Salewa brand sleeping bag cover …. 1.5, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20
Sarcasm
appropriate use …. 2.13, 2.14, 2.46, 2.60, 2.66, 2.102
Sash cords …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.13, 3.15, 3.23
Seeding a question with information …. 3.79
Select Fire manual …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.39, 2.40, 2.42, 2.44, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54
Sequence of events
pinning down …. 4.3
Sequencing of questions …. 3.25, 3.58
‘Sheer coincidence’ phrase …. 2.33, 2.35
Shooter’s licence …. 1.5, 1.6, 2.21, 3.85, 3.86, 3.87, 3.90, 3.94
Showing an important exhibit …. 3.15
Significance of inactivity …. 3.89
Silencer …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.12, 3.58, 3.59
Simple questions …. 3.32
SKK rifle …. 1.6, 2.30, 2.80, 2.84, 3.39
‘Smart’ or ‘clever’ answers …. 2.12
Statements as questions …. 2.42
Straying answers …. 2.6, 2.10, 2.41, 2.89
‘String of beads’ questions …. 2.33
Stringing together doubtful assertions …. 2.70

T
Task Force Air
establishment …. 1.2
evidence gathering …. 1.4, 1.5, 1.10
information line …. 1.3
Paul Onions incident …. 1.3
Techniques
accumulating consistent themes …. 3.94
accumulating evidence …. 3.66
aggregating evidence …. 3.28, 3.44
answers admitting unavoidable truths …. 2.85
answers borne of necessity …. 2.84
answers qualified by ‘probably’ …. 3.31
approaching the witness with exhibit …. 2.30, 2.73
arriving at the conclusion …. 2.82
asking questions in parts …. 3.97
asking witness to describe content of exhibit …. 3.80
asking witness to explain to jury …. 2.26, 2.74, 2.100, 2.104, 2.106
asking witness to read aloud from exhibit …. 2.51
assertions as questions …. 2.42
‘assuming this is correct, what then?’ …. 2.97
attention to detail …. 2.69
breaking a question into components …. 2.15
breaking the golden rule …. 2.68
building on opportunities …. 2.25
building the point …. 3.66
‘building’ questions …. 2.44
building upon answers …. 2.8
‘can you think of any reason why?’ …. 2.57
capitalising on absurd explanations …. 2.78
changing themes smoothly …. 4.6
‘climax’ questions …. 2.54, 2.88
clarifying a question …. 3.57, 3.97, 4.9
clarity in questions …. 4.11
clarity of thought ‘on the run’ …. 2.79
closing the gates …. 2.4, 2.5, 4.15
combining significant evidence …. 3.23
comments during questioning …. 2.22
comparing items …. 3.24, 3.26
concluding questions …. 3.68
confronting the witness …. 2.50, 2.65, 2.95, 3.3, 3.12, 3.17, 3.18, 3.24
evidence in an exhibit …. 4.12, 4.13
irrefutable and damaging evidence …. 3.69
laying the groundwork …. 3.22
other witnesses …. 4.26
control …. 2.1, 2.51, 3.91
 care and control …. 3.86
maintaining control …. 2.10, 2.56, 3.47, 3.95
conveying disbelief of answer given …. 2.62
correcting yourself …. 3.48, 3.98
creating impact …. 2.74
credibility of witness …. 2.5, 2.14, 2.38, 2.43, 2.48, 2.49, 2.64
cross-examiner’s knowledge of evidence …. 2.40
details at the ready …. 3.13
development of crucial evidence …. 3.1
dramatic questions …. 3.88
drawing strands of evidence together …. 3.5
echoing …. 2.53, 2.72, 2.80, 3.50, 3.63
emphasising a point …. 3.88
establishing authority of cross-examiner …. 2.1
establishing familiarity with component of crime …. 2.21
establishing familiarity with place …. 4.16
establishing groundwork …. 4.3
establishing likelihood of contact with crucial exhibit …. 3.8
establishing possession of incriminating evidence …. 2.20
exasperated ‘oh!’ …. 2.46
exposing matters …. 3.64
finishing a theme …. 2.32
finishing cross-examination …. 4.28
‘flag-planting’ questions …. 2.43, 2.86, 2.87
‘focusing’ questions …. 2.43, 2.75, 2.86, 2.87, 3.30, 3.90
‘follow through’ questions …. 2.88
forcing a ‘turnaround’ …. 2.17, 2.77
forcing an election …. 3.74
grabbing attention of jury …. 2.29
‘groundwork’ questions …. 3.34, 3.37, 3.78, 3.93, 4.3
‘have you got any explanation’ …. 3.6
‘hedging’ answers …. 2.3, 2.14, 2.40, 2.49, 3.14
helpful ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers …. 2.31
hypothetical questions …. 2.108
‘I can’t recall, but if you say so’ …. 3.4, 3.53
identifying clues in reluctant answers …. 3.67
identifying habits of witness …. 3.49
identifying significant concessions …. 4.12
insinuation …. 2.27, 2.39, 2.96, 2.108
insisting on precise answers …. 3.10, 3.31
intuitive questions …. 3.51, 4.5
‘is this what you’re saying’ …. 3.65
itemisation …. 2.103, 2.105
‘just answer the question’ …. 2.41, 2.55, 2.56
knowing the answer …. 2.68, 3.84
knowing when not to challenge …. 4.20
leading questions …. 2.32
leaving jury to make connections …. 2.94
‘light bulb’ moments …. 2.91
linking …. 2.2, 2.99, 3.9, 3.20, 3.22, 3.29, 4.2
linking back …. 2.7, 2.53
listening to the judge …. 4.9
maintaining pace of questioning …. 2.45, 3.62, 4.21
making connections between items …. 3.27, 3.28
missed opportunities …. 3.102
moving on from issues …. 2.19, 3.62, 3.85
multi-layered advocacy …. 2.14
not taking ‘no’ for an answer …. 2.38
open-ended questions …. 3.84
opening sequence of questions …. 2.1
offering opportunities to admit …. 3.56
order of questions …. 3.25, 3.34, 3.41
other witnesses …. 4.25, 4.26
summing up effect …. 4.27
parcelling items of evidence …. 2.86
patient development of evidence …. 3.1
paying attention to answers …. 2.18
persistence …. 2.49, 2.55, 2.58, 2.92, 3.91, 3.92
photographs as evidence …. 3.39, 3.45
drawing out helpful evidence …. 3.82
identification features …. 1.12, 3.78, 3.80, 4.17, 4.18
narrowing timeframes …. 4.3
pressing for clear answers …. 3.42
probing …. 3.40, 3.46
spotting incriminating evidence …. 3.40
use of photographs …. 3.100, 4.1, 4.18
value of evidence …. 3.38
writing of date …. 3.50, 3.51
pinning down sequence of events …. 4.3
pinning down the point …. 3.91
‘please explain to the jury’ phrase …. 2.26
pointing out weaknesses to witness …. 3.75
politeness …. 4.7
pressing …. 2.36, 2.55, 2.81, 2.109, 3.23, 3.36, 3.42
probing …. 2.23, 2.60, 2.67, 2.83, 2.96, 2.99, 2.103, 3.23, 3.24, 3.32, 3.40,
3.46, 3.59, 3.60, 3.61, 3.70, 3.71, 3.101, 4.13, 4.22
provocative questions …. 3.61
punctuation …. 3.16, 3.21, 3.83, 4.28
putting identification features to witness …. 4.17
putting the case …. 2.76, 3.33, 3.99
questions by witness …. 2.34, 2.58, 2.101, 3.54
answering …. 2.107
questions in the nature of submissions …. 4.4
quick thinking …. 2.9
reasonable person …. 3.32
acting appropriately …. 3.35, 3.77, 3.101, 4.23
significance of inactivity …. 3.89
recapping previous evidence …. 3.96
recreating state of affairs …. 4.14
reductio ad absurdum question …. 2.37
reinforcing previous evidence …. 3.43, 3.52
reining in the witness …. 2.24
relating back …. 3.50
reluctant partial concessions by witness …. 2.61
reminding …. 2.16
previous admissions …. 2.52
previous evidence …. 2.18, 4.14
previous similar behaviour …. 2.16
repetition …. 2.35, 2.93
rhetorical questions …. 2.28, 4.19
rule in Browne v Dunne …. 2.59
sarcasm …. 2.13, 2.14, 2.46, 2.60, 2.66, 2.102
seeding a question with information …. 3.79
sequencing of questions …. 3.25, 3.58
showing an important exhibit …. 3.15
significance of inactivity …. 3.89
similar items of evidence …. 2.90
simple questions …. 3.32
‘smart’ or ‘clever’ answers …. 2.12
statements as questions …. 2.42
straying answers …. 2.6, 2.10, 2.41, 2.89
‘string of beads’ questions …. 2.33
stringing together doubtful assertions …. 2.70
testing an alibi …. 4.24
timing …. 3.73, 3.78, 3.93, 4.8, 4.12, 4.13, 4.27
undermining …. 2.11, 2.36, 2.63, 2.66, 2.98, 3.2, 3.26
underscoring witness difficulties …. 3.76
use of demonstration …. 3.55
use of exhibits …. 2.30, 2.50, 3.11, 3.15, 3.19
use of jury freshness after break …. 3.69
 use of magnifying glasses …. 3.81
use of photographs …. 3.100, 4.1, 4.18
use of recorded interview …. 4.8
use of undisputed items …. 2.71
vague answers …. 2.6, 2.15
‘what makes you single out this occasion’ …. 3.72
‘why?’ …. 3.87
‘win/win’ questions …. 2.37
withdrawal of questions …. 3.48
Telecom rope …. 1.2, 1.7, 1.12
Tent equipment …. 1.5, 1.7, 1.12, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.20
Testing an alibi …. 4.24
Timing …. 3.73, 3.78, 3.93, 4.8, 4.12, 4.13, 4.27

U
Ultimate brand sleeping bag …. 1.7
Undermining
comparing items …. 3.26
extrapolation …. 2.63, 2.66
overview …. 2.11
pointing out absurdities …. 2.98
pressing, and …. 2.36
sarcasm …. 2.66
use of contrast …. 3.2
Underscoring witness difficulties …. 3.76
Undisputed items …. 2.65, 2.71
Unexpected opportunities …. 2.109
Unifying evidence …. 3.28
Use of demonstration …. 3.55
Use of exhibits …. 2.30, 2.50, 3.11, 3.15, 3.19
Use of jury freshness after break …. 3.69
Use of magnifying glasses …. 3.81
Use of photographs …. 3.100, 4.1, 4.18
Use of recorded interview …. 4.8
Use of undisputed items …. 2.71

V
Vague answers
breaking a question into components …. 2.15
overview …. 2.6

W
Water bottle …. 1.5, 1.12, 2.96, 2.98
‘What makes you single out this occasion’ …. 3.72
‘Why?’ …. 3.87
Winchester items …. 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 1.12, 2.11, 2.20, 2.36, 3.64, 3.66, 4.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.29
‘Win/win’ questions …. 2.37
Withdrawal of questions …. 3.48
Wombeyan Caves property …. 1.4, 1.9
Work boots …. 1.5, 2.4, 4.29

Y
Yellow haversack …. 1.6, 1.12, 2.77, 2.90, 2.92
Yellow t-shirt …. 1.8, 4.21